Schneider talks about La Sierra

Source: Jared Wright, SpectrumMagazine.org

North American Division president Don C. Schneider spoke to a Sabbath school class at the Calimesa Seventh-day Adventist Church in California April 10, 2010. The following is an excerpt from Wright’s article where Schneider addressed the controversy surrounding La Sierra University.

With a small handful of minutes remaining, one audience member raised the issue of La Sierra University and evolution, to which Schneider jokingly responded, “Can we be done ten minutes ago?”

He added that when it comes to this topic, he is a “pretty simple guy.” Schneider affirmed his belief in the Bible, and said that if things do not square with the Bible, they are wrong because for him, the Bible is right.

Schneider went on to say that he tried to pay a visit to university president Randal Wisbey (who was not in the office that day). Schneider wanted to encourage Wisbey to “stay close to Jesus” and to be his friend.

Schneider then pointed out that those being attacked are also people with souls to save, and that we should be careful how we deal with anybody with opinions that differ from our own.

Schneider suggested that it might even be possible that some would end up “outside the wall” of heaven because of condemnatory attitudes. “Attitude is important!” Schneider said to applause.

Doug Batchelor addresses the topic of who we should be more concerned about saving in Save the professors or the students?

Hear Don Schneider’s comments from the GYC 2009 “Unashamed” conference on this topic.

Share on Facebook0Pin on Pinterest0Share on LinkedIn0Tweet about this on TwitterDigg thisShare on Google+0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Print this pageEmail this to someone

34 thoughts on “Schneider talks about La Sierra

  1. I’m happy to hear that leadership is more concerned with saving the souls of wayward professors than the students under their tutelage (sarcasm).

    Are we still trying to redeem the professors? We can do that after they’ve left their position. Mean time, hundreds of students are put in harms way.




    0
    View Comment
  2. All souls are important, and as the Bible says, all should be treated with respect (Jude 8-9, etc.). The problem is that today many people believe that all rebuking (public and private), disfellowshipping, etc., are unloving. This view is very common and false.

    The tragic result is that we end up with leaders who may be correct in their own theology and lifestyle, but fail to complete the biblical, God-given duty to disciple/discipline their churches, conferences, etc. The result proves it is anything but love. They think they are being so patient, kind, tolerant, etc., but in reality they are destroying the church, the worst possible thing that could happen.

    Obviously there is another extreme. Unfortunately it seems that historically over the centuries the church always swings from one extreme to the other, without ever stopping in the safe middle ground.




    0
    View Comment
  3. Schneider seems to confuse the need to maintain Church government and internal order with moral judgments and condemnation against those who do not support the ideals of the SDA Church organization. This simply isn’t true. Just because the Church cannot sponsor a person as an official paid representative before pulpit or classroom who does not support the Church’s fundamental goals and ideals does not mean that the Church has passed moral judgment on that person or that this person should not be loved as a child of God.

    I simply do not understand those in leadership positions who are so unwilling to take action on matters of Church government just because it will create controversy and hard feelings with some who do not agree with this or that stated stand of the SDA Church. What right does anyone have to undermine the Church’s ideals on the Church’s dime? Where is the need for the leadership of the Church to stand idly by and see this happen decade after decade by those who are becoming bolder and bolder as time goes on without any action in response?

    When will someone grow some backbone in Church leadership? Hopefully before this Church, as an organization, collapses into irrelevance…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  4. Elder Schneider is my friend, a pleasant man who insists on being called “Don” by subordinates as well as colleagues. But the lack of indigation on his part regarding this blatant betrayal of a key fundamental of our faith is deeply disturbing. These remarks at Calimesa remind me, tragically, of the casual way he seemed to treat this controversy when questioned about it by the young people at GYC this past December.

    It is not enough for him to affirm his simple faith in what the Bible says. As a leader sacredly entrusted with the guardianship of the North American Church, he must vigorously seek accountability from workers whose task is to instruct the coming generation of Adventists in the worldview and mission of God’s end-time remnant.

    The servant of the Lord is clear about the kind of leaders God’s church needs, in such a moment as this:

    “In the work of reform to be carried forward today, there is need of men who, like Ezra and Nehemiah, will not palliate or excuse sin, nor shrink from vindicating the honor of God. Those upon whom rests the burden of this work will not hold their peace when wrong is done, neither will they cover evil with a cloak of false charity. They will remember that God is no respecter of persons, and that severity to a few may prove mercy to many. They will remember also that in the one who rebukes evil the spirit of Christ should ever be revealed” (PK 675).

    God bless!

    Pastor Kevin Paulson




    0
    View Comment
  5. You people keep going farther and farther down this rabbit hole. Now you are reaching the point where you are condemning people for not being angry enough about this issue. It’s a disgrace. You don’t want to turn into a Westboro Baptist Church.




    0
    View Comment
  6. “[The church leadership is] naturally going to view the group calling attention to the problem with more suspicion than they do the LaSierra faculty. The LaSierra faculty is not asking them to do anything, not making their lives more complicated. We are.” –DCR 4/11/10

    Story breaking later the same day:

    “Schneider then pointed out that those being attacked are also people with souls to save, and that we should be careful how we deal with anybody with opinions that differ from our own. Schneider suggested that it might even be possible that some would end up ‘outside the wall’ of heaven because of condemnatory attitudes. ‘Attitude is important!’ Schneider said to applause.”

    Plain English Translation: The people calling attention to the Darwinist professors at LaSierra are the real problem, not the Darwinists professors at LaSierra.

    I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so. I’m neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet, but it is downright eerie that I wrote what I wrote, and then Schneider’s words would be reported just a few hours later.

    “Schneider went on to say that he tried to pay a visit to university president Randal Wisbey (who was not in the office that day). Schneider wanted to encourage Wisbey to “stay close to Jesus” and to be his friend.”

    So Wisbey is the one that needs reassurance and encouragement?? Incredible.

    Another factor that I didn’t mention on the other thread is that paid church employees may not like each other or agree with each other, but they’ll certainly stick together against the laity.




    0
    View Comment
  7. You people keep going farther and farther down this rabbit hole.

    That’s quite the generalization Paul. Anyone can make assertions like that. I can only assume you’re referring to Kevin Paulson’s comment.

    Now you are reaching the point where you are condemning people for not being angry enough about this issue.

    Are you condemning someone Paul? That would be ironic.

    It’s a disgrace.

    To who? You? It’s actually a disgrace to our church to have employees who are undermining what we believe while still taking a paycheck. It’s a disgrace that we’re still employing them.




    0
    View Comment
  8. What a shameful response from one who is supposed to be the leader of the North American Division. Brother Schneider, I might strongly suggest that “those with differing opinion” can be used in a powerful way to destroy our young people, and even our beloved church. You are encouraging us to support this kind of non-biblical nonsense, while making light of faithful SDA students who believe the truths of God’s Word. The camel of Satan’s sophistry no longer has his head in the tent. The camel is safely inside and destroying all that is true.




    0
    View Comment
  9. That’s quite the generalization Paul. Anyone can make assertions like that. I can only assume you’re referring to Kevin Paulson’s comment.

    I was referring particularly to your sarcasm in the first post as well as Kevin’s denouncement of Schneider, but in general the “majority opinion” on this website keeps finding more and more people to be unhappy with.

    Are you condemning someone Paul? That would be ironic

    If you think that condemnatory behavior is immune from comment just because such comment would be “ironic” you are kidding yourself. I know you are smart enough to know the difference between denouncing Westboro Baptist Church and being Westboro Baptist Church. Also if you read what I said, it wasn’t the fact that you are condemnatory that I was speaking out against, but the sort of “onion layer” effect that is going on here. I mean seriously…Don Schneider is on your side here, and yet here is a long line of comments trashing him for not being angry enough about it. The reason I commented on this issue is that I had just read an article about Westboro a few minutes earlier. Those are people who took an issue–homosexuality–that they were really passionate about. They then just ballooned out in people on their enemies list until they got to the point that they were against people simply for living in a country in which gays are not killed. The only thing they have left, by their own admission, is to spread the “message” that God hates America. And that has consumed their whole lives. Seriously, you don’t want to become that.




    0
    View Comment
  10. Sean, I with you on the lack of backbone, which I have been speaking about for months. Unfortunately, Shane seems to think this type of thinking is “too inflammatory” for our website!




    0
    View Comment
  11. Pastor Shafer, I agree with you 100% The “camel” has been in the LSU tent for many years, with nobody doing anything about it. Neither Wisbey, Graham, or Schneider have any backbone to do anything but speak in “politicalese” and avoid the real issues!




    0
    View Comment
  12. David, Schneider is actually a large part of the real problem, which is the lack of actual Godly leaders in our NAD, especially here in the Pacific Union Conference. “Politics as usual” reigns in our SDA Church, as it does in our government!




    0
    View Comment
  13. Schneider paying a visit to Wisbey and encouraging him to “keep up the good fight” is typical of the pseudoleaders we have in the NAD. This is WHY we gotta get off our behinds and start some action!




    0
    View Comment
  14. @Sean Pitman, M.D.: Well stated, Sean. I believe the problem is a desire to be “accepted” by those of other beliefs because there is not a firm commitment to such an unpopular standard, and the need to feel a part of the evangelical community is so overwhelmingly. As one conference president put it: “Pastor Dan, I need to make everyone happy and kept under the same umbrella.” My response was: “The Truth brings division; it separates truth from error. Compromise never brings unity.”




    0
    View Comment
  15. Sounds like we ought to be exceedingly GLAD Schneider isn’t the President of LSU! We might have the Pope as Chairman of the Religion Department!




    0
    View Comment
  16. Prof. Kent wrote (Spectrum Blog):

    http://www.spectrummagazine.org/blog/2010/04/10/nad_president_discusses_womens_ordination#comment-49765

    Sean,

    Your analogy to Catholocism fails on another obvious front. To believe that a Church which does not fire–and even shelters–pedophilic priests (who have broken both God’s law and U.S. law) would readily fire an employee who merely questions the virginity of Mary totally stretches credulity.

    Oh really? Check out the following report of just such a situation where a priest was in fact let go for just such infractions:

    http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2009/04/fired-priest-isnt-going-qu

    You see, pedophile-priests aren’t public in their attack on the standards of the Catholic Church. If they were, the Church would no doubt have not shielded them as it did (to its own shame). Those who publicly teach directly contrary to the Catholic Church’s stated ideals and fundamentals are let go if they cannot be convinced to change their course.

    I’m afraid that your myopic zeal toward persecuting theistic evolutionists within the Church, including those both real and imagined, has blinded you to the point you have lost touch with reality. I think you need a soul conversion much like Saul, who regained his sight only when he conceded he had been pursuing his own mission rather than the Lord’s.

    Posted by: Professor Kent (not verified) | 12 April 2010 at 7:10

    Interesting that you think yourself clear to judge the state of my very soul before God. Getting kinda personal aren’t you? – judging morality and motive?

    You do realize that this issue isn’t a moral issue? – right? What one does or does not believe regarding the doctrine of creation isn’t going to save anyone or get anyone lost. It just isn’t a moral issue. It is an issue of Church government and order, however. It is also a basis of a solid hope in a bright literal future. You just don’t seem to understand what you’re attacking. Someday you will, but it would be far better for you now if you understood it now.

    Regardless though, if you think you’re right, and those supporting you’re perspective think they are so clearly in the right, why not advertise it with pride? Why not present the clear rights of LSU science professors and other paid representatives of the Church and all other organizations to say and do whatever they please on the dime of their employers? LSU should be proud of its “academic freedom” – and advertise this freedom in a very clear and decided manner so that no one will have any doubt as to what LSU stands for. LSU should make it very clear to parents what its teachers stand for and promote, as the gospel truth, in their classrooms. Why even try to hide what’s going on if it is so right and so beneficial? Why all these efforts to sequester information and put students on academic probation for presenting what is really taking place in LSU classrooms?

    Who is on the attack here? LSU’s professors can attack the pillars of the SDA faith for decades and put students on academic probation who are attempting to defend that faith… and LSU is somehow the “victim” of attack when someone simply points out what LSU is doing in public? – and asks for increased transparency? Please…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  17. Self-Contradictory Postmodernism
    http://www.spectrummagazine.org/blog/2010/04/10/nad_president_discusses_womens_ordination#comment-49771

    Yes, I’d say the spirit of Rome like the Pharisees before them is alive and well in the church. However, like both groups before you, historic Adventism refuses to see that it is THEY and not progressive SDAism that harbors the spirit.

    Posted by: Darrell (not verified) | 12 April 2010 at 8:04

    Postmodernism…

    You have to know that you are being just as judgmental against those who disagree with you as is anyone in this forum. You just said that certain people disagreeing with you harbor the spirit of Romanish suppression, persecution, and Phariseism. Is this not a judgment on your part? – suggesting your willingness to suppress what you consider to be evil from your perspective?

    You see, you can’t get away from making judgments if you have any sort of opinion on any topic. You are making judgments on who is right and who is wrong and what kind of government should be in place within the Church.

    Hopefully, however, we will all refrain from making moral judgments as to the motives of one another as this type of judgment is the prerogative of God alone.

    Also, we should not think to appeal to the Church to take on civil authority. All should be free to leave any Church or religious organization at will, free of any civil repercussions or moral recriminations regarding these particular points of doctrinal disagreement. It always turns out badly, always, when any church thinks to take on the powers of civil government. God does not appeal to the force of civil power to convert, but to the force of the appeal itself and the drawing of the Holy Spirit upon the heart.

    This is not to say, however, that God does not expect the Church to establish internal government and order. God is a God of order and expects his Church to display internal government and order over those who think to freely take on the name of His organization. Remember, Heaven is a place of order. Even Lucifer and his angels were kindly asked to leave Heaven (more like forced out) when they openly rebelled against the order and government of Heaven and tried to take over…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  18. Sure Schneider got “applause!” He said absolutely nothing that would even hint he had any backbone to do something about the problems we are discussing here. That’s exactly what LSU wants to hear! Next up on the podium–Ricardo Graham? He’ll get even MORE applause!




    0
    View Comment
  19. Intolerance of Intolerance?
    http://www.spectrummagazine.org/blog/2010/04/10/nad_president_discusses_womens_ordination#comment-49819

    If there’s one thing I can’t tolerate it’s intolerance.

    Sean, the story you shared (http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2009/04/fired-priest-isnt-going-qu…) provided a rather extreme case that hardly evolved around a single fundamental catholic belief. Questioning the virginity of Mary appeared to be a rather small issue. I seriously doubt your claims.

    Posted by: Professor Kent (not verified) | 13 April 2010 at 12:22

    Everyone is intolerant at some point – hopefully. Even God kicked Lucifer out of Heaven when he rebelled against the order and government of Heaven and tried to take over. What about civil crimes? Are you tolerant of child rapists living in your neighborhood? – or would you throw them in prison?

    Oh, but you’re not talking about civil crimes. You’re talking about tolerance for religious ideas – right? And, I agree. Civil society should be tolerant of a very wide range of religious ideas and practices – as long as those ideas and practices do not counter civil law (like laws against child molesters, etc).

    No religious society should ever be allowed to enforce their particular religious views and observances on civil society at large – period. However, it is perfectly fine, and even necessary, for a religious organization to be able to only hire those individuals who actually represent the goals and ideals of that particular organization. It would be silly to expect that all organizations would go no farther than basic civil law in what they stood for within society at large. Otherwise, there’d be no point in having different church organizations since there would be no differences.

    As far as your notion that the Catholic Church would never fire a representative for publicly undermining the stated ideals and goals of the Church, you’re quite mistaken. Although “Father Kennedy” was not fired for just one infraction (few people who strongly oppose any church organization are only opposed to just one issue), all the infractions listed were doctrinal differences of opinion.

    “Father Kennedy, of St Mary’s in South Brisbane, allows women to preach, blesses gay couples, denies the Virgin birth and claims the Church is dysfunctional.”

    http://www.smh.com.au/national/priest-fired-for-unholy-communion-2009021

    Many who frequent this particular forum would be fully in support of all of Kennedy’s opinions here – and therefore would clearly not be employed by the Catholic Church. Go figure…

    Yet, if the Catholic Church did not stand for anything unique, if it hired those who did not support these same unique beliefs, what would be the point of having a “Catholic” perspective? The term “Catholic” would be meaningless after a while if nothing unique was really represented by the term “Catholic”.

    The same thing is true of the SDA Church. If the term “SDA” really doesn’t mean anything unique from anything else, what’s the point in having an “SDA” church? The term would soon be meaningless as far as giving anyone any sort of idea as to what sets the SDA Church apart from any other group of people…

    What you’re arguing for is a lack of identity – eventual irrelevance that is not distinguishable from what already exists in civil society at large. You are actually the one who is intolerant of any organization that doesn’t agree with you and your view of what all should believe and stand for within their own organizations…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  20. @Geanna Dane:

    Sean, you might want too check out Professor Kent’s replies at Spectrum.  

    Prof. Kent seems to me to want his cake and eat it too. He claims that he understands and believes in the need for clearly established internal order and government within the Church. Yet, Prof. Kent seems to get very upset every time anyone suggests that the Church actually back up what it says it stands for on a fundamental basis. I don’t know about you, but I see that sort of thing as being inconsistent… At least I don’t have any good idea as to where Kent would draw the line… aside from with the issue of women’s ordination that is. Anything beyond this is unclear as far as I can tell…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  21. Opening article:
    Schneider suggested that it might even be possible that some would end up “outside the wall” of heaven because of condemnatory attitudes. “Attitude is important!” Schneider said to applause.

    Doug Batchelor addresses the topic of who we should be more concerned about saving in Save the professors or the students?

    Hear Don Schneider’s comments from the GYC 2009 “Unashamed” conference on this topic.

    Sean said:
    @Sean Pitman, M.D.:

    simply do not understand those in leadership positions who are so unwilling to take action on matters of Church government just because it will create controversy and hard feelings with some who do not agree with this or that stated stand of the SDA Church. What right does anyone have to undermine the Church’s ideals on the Church’s dime? Where is the need for the leadership of the Church to stand idly by and see this happen decade after decade by those who are becoming bolder and bolder as time goes on without any action in response?

    In the GYC video link above at the 1:13:30 point – Don Schneider makes it clear that his primary concern is that the one who is teaching non-SDA doctrine not be confronted in an unpleasant fashion and that that person be truly happy in the job which they are doing. He states that it is his understanding that those in the church employ that teach against our doctrines are not really happy doing what they are doing and if comitted to those non-SDA views will surely admit in a one-on-one discussion that they would be happier working someplace else.

    Thus with that model of an organization – you can see how the main concern might be that critics of the evolutionists are not responding in the tender fashion that would promote the happiness of the one evangelizing for evolutionism at LSU.

    I have to admit that he is being consistent in his approach on that point between what we see him saying on the video and what he is saying in the SECC church meeting quoted above.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  22. @Paul:

    I mean seriously…Don Schneider is on your side here, and yet here is a long line of comments trashing him for not being angry enough about it. The reason I commented on this issue is that I had just read an article about Westboro a few minutes earlier

    I too doubt that Don is an evolutionist.

    However this thing did not happen overnight nor is LSU in some non-NAD division of the church. He is so high up in the NAD leadership chain that he is hardly in a position to be a neutral outside observer coming in late to the party.

    There is a distinct line of demarcation between the “must deal with this problem” response of many of the GC VP’s on that panel – vs Don’s response to the questions about LSU and those who evangelize for evolutionism while getting paid for doing so – by the Adventist Church.

    However it is true that Wisbey does not directly report to Don and apparently neither does Ricardo Graham. All the panel members appear to agree on the structure that places Wisbey and Graham on point.

    However in 3T 265-272, 281 there are more than a few applicable statements to this situation. Let anyone who has an interest read and be informed.

    In 2Cor 7 Paul comments on the actions of the church at Corinth in handling a case of publically known – gross sin in the camp. Paul says that “in everything you proved yourselves to be innocent in the matter”. However when we actually look at the 1Cor 5 “solution” they implemented – it was far from a “ask them what would make them happy” approach to the problem. At least that is one person’s POV – I could be wrong.

    We can certainly affirm the point that both Larry Blackmer and Don Schneider have taken a similar position and are in solidarity with each other and are standing behind Wisbey on this matter. He should at least feel affirmed by their support.

    By contrast, it is clear that EducateTruth does not share that level of support. In fact – in the GYC video even Mark Finley defined the idea of “independant” (self funded) “corrective” ministry – as a problem. An extreme right-wing problem that attempts to correct the church from “without”. So there is at least an “argument” that even Mark Finley would not approve of the exposure that EducateTruth is giving to the issue of evolutionism.

    But Mark Finley was asked a related question on that video about public evangelism and whether it was really the best form of reaching the unsaved. His response was that “people who criticise public evangelism are usually not the ones doing it. If there is a better more effective proven solution – Praise God! What is it”. And that was a good answer of course.

    In the same way – I might suggest that that same answer would apply to EducateTruth. If this multi-decade problem of evolutionism (esp at LSU) has been more effectively dealt with by some other means and it is truly “coincidental” that public (Adventist membership) pressure is coming about now – while it just so happens that this web site is making Adventists aware of the problem so as to apply pressure to responsible administraros – then perhaps we have made an error.

    If on the other hand it is the much more likely case of cause (public awareness) – effect (pressure on lax/reluctant administrators) being significantly assisted by EducateTruth – then perhaps Pastor Finley’s answer to the “public evangelism” question is equally applicable here.

    Time will tell.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  23. Food for thought:

    “If he can’t do it, if he can’t take the consequences of being truthful on this matter his integrity should lead him for the good of the church to step down…and I complement the institutional church on programs they have put in place for the better protection of children over the past eight years, but I would like to cite a statement – a quote if you would, from St. Thomas More: “The last temptation, the greatest treason, to do the right thing for the wrong reason.” All these programs of the last eight years have sprung up because they were caught, they were exposed. The man at the top should know what’s going on throughout the system and if by the slimmest of chance the [leader] and all his [associates] didn’t know, I think it’s an instance of incompetence and irresponsibility, and even on those grounds they should resign. This is not my issue, it’s our issue.” – James Scahill, Massachusetts Clergy
    (http://edition.cnn.com/video/?/video/us/2010/04/13/bts.snow.pope.scahill.intv.cnn)

    God bless,

    Rich




    0
    View Comment
  24. Leaders who claim they “did not know” of anything should be removed. This type of rationalizing of “ignorance” is pathetic. It’s their duty TO KNOW what is going on, and they should be in a position, either personally or by a representative who reports to them, TO KNOW!




    0
    View Comment
  25. I found this quote by Pastor Kevin Paulson in a previous scan and then spent the better part of an hour this evening trying to find it again.

    This is really great!

    @Kevin Paulson:

    The servant of the Lord is clear about the kind of leaders God’s church needs, in such a moment as this:

    “In the work of reform to be carried forward today, there is need of men who, like Ezra and Nehemiah, will not palliate or excuse sin, nor shrink from vindicating the honor of God. Those upon whom rests the burden of this work will not hold their peace when wrong is done, neither will they cover evil with a cloak of false charity. They will remember that God is no respecter of persons, and that severity to a few may prove mercy to many. They will remember also that in the one who rebukes evil the spirit of Christ should ever be revealed” (PK 675).

    There the perfect balance is seen.

    There also the appeal, so often echoed as it calls for “false charity”, is exposed.

    Here we find a little less soft-toned version of that same warning listed above.

    In the existing state of religious declension, there is crying need of earnest, faithful Nehemiahs and Ezras,–men who will not shun to call sin by its right name, and who will not shrink from vindicating the honor of God. Those upon whom God has laid the burden of his work are not to hold their peace, and cover prevailing evils with a cloak of false charity. Men of courage and energy are needed to expose fashionable sins. Iniquity must not be palliated and excused. Those who lead the church of God to follow the customs and practices of the world, are not to be lauded and exalted. No regard for family or position will hinder the faithful servants of Christ from guarding the interests of his people. God is no respecter of persons.

    Great light and special privileges bring increased responsibility. When those who have been favored or honored of God, commit sin, their influence goes very far to encourage others in transgression. And if, by their example, the faith of another is weakened, and moral and religious principle is broken down, the wrath of God will surely come upon those betrayers of their sacred trust. {ST, January 24, 1884 par. 9}

    “wrath of God on betrayers of their sacred trust”????

    Glad I did not author that one!

    And if the Bible has anything to say about the gift of prophecy – then Ellen White did not author that statement either!

    As the song goes — “God and God alone”!

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  26. Schneider went on to say that he tried to pay a visit to university president Randal Wisbey (who was not in the office that day). Schneider wanted to encourage Wisbey to “stay close to Jesus” and to be his friend.

    First of all, is this really what Schneider said? Has anyone confirmed that the statement as given is accurate?

    If it is true, then it appears that the statement is theologically incorrect.

    In 5T 516-520 appears a tactfully written letter to Canright after Canright had written an article for the Review advocating the reading by our youth of Uncle Tom’s Cabin and Aesop’s Fables. On p. 517, she wrote, “You must be getting away from Jesus and His teachings and do not realize it.”

    Thus, to be theologically accurate, if Wisbey does not believe in a six-day creation and Noah’s Flood, and is not using his position and influence at LSU to correct the problem, one cannot truthfully tell him to “Stay close to Jesus.” At the very best, something along the lines of what Ellen White wrote would be more appropriate.

    Another snippet from the letter gives a better picture of the overall tone of her letter: “I have felt so thankful for you that you could act a part in this great work. Jesus loves you, and He will work with your efforts if you have a living connection with God. But you must live a life of watchfulness and prayer. Do not become careless. Do not separate from Jesus, but bring Him into your everyday life.”

    Canright couldn’t stand correction. I’ve wondered if his last departure from the church was in response to this letter, as well as to Ellen White’s rebuttal article that was printed in the Review.




    0
    View Comment
  27. @Bob Pickle:

    In 5T 516-520 appears a tactfully written letter to Canright after Canright had written an article for the Review advocating the reading by our youth of Uncle Tom’s Cabin and Aesop’s Fables. On p. 517, she wrote, “You must be getting away from Jesus and His teachings and do not realize it.”

    So given that Ellen White calls theistic evolutionism the “worst form of infidelity” 3SG 90-91, my guess is that she would not want the Review publishing an article suggesting that the youth read Darwin’s “Origin of the Species”.

    That is something to think about.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  28. Sometimes I think that we have forgotten what it means to be loving, truly loving as is our God. What is the MOST BASIC definition of LOVE? “Perfect Love is a Perfect Balance between Justice and Mercy.” This means that one is not too harsh or too lenient. This means that to be “kind and loving” sometimes the “rod” of discipline must be applied. Teachers and Professors, as well as students of ANY age, MUST be disciplined if TRUE LOVE is to be maintained. If the written contract with the University is broken to the damaging of the student, then IN LOVE, IN KINDNESS to the confused teacher/professor, he/she MUST be disciplined or there is NO TRUE LOVE in relations between the educational institution and the violating one. To keep an unrepentant thief in your house, be he a stranger or a family member, is NOT LOVE but rather simple indulgence, which will lead to greater and greater violations of the RIGHTS of others. When we say “God Bless you!” to one who has violated us, we ARE NOT saying “God, please give this person LOTS and LOTS of nice presents!” We are rather saying “Please, God, do ALL that you may to give this person EVERY CHANCE for Salvation, even if it include prison and a death penalty!” Do I want to see the man who raped and murdered my 12 year old daughter in Heaven (a true happening)? Absolutely, so that together we can rejoice in the Saving Power of Jesus Christ! Do I want to see that same man receive the Death Penalty? Absolutely, because even the SOP supports that as a valid deterent to crime! God bless you all, and be careful because sometimes His Blessings are of the Rod! Grin!




    0
    View Comment
  29. The term “love” as it is used at LSU [edit] means coddling to [error] to the point that most are afraid to even talk about any problems. Just “stay close to Jesus” as Don Schneider stated. What a cop-out! When are we going to get some leaders out here in California? [edit]




    0
    View Comment
  30. Sadly, the church tends to coddle the dangerously divisive theologians at the expense of innocent young people who will be led astray. All will come to account one day.




    0
    View Comment
  31. “All will come to accout one day,” writes Jonathan Taylor. He’s right.

    According to Scripture, it is also true that some who have been thought of as sheep will turn out to have been goats and some who have been thought of as goats will turn out to have been sheep.

    This suggests to me the wisdom of not being too self-confident about one’s own spiritual and moral superiority on any of these issues. Some people are going to be very surprised.

    I hope I am not one of them!




    0
    View Comment
  32. My my, I wonder what Jesus would say about this legalistic tower of Babel. Why not just be good to each other and get off the dogmatic horse? Educate Truth? How about educate compassion and tolerance.

    All who carry the name of Christ should be advocating compassion and tolerance of the weaknesses of our brothers and sisters in Christ – according to how we ourselves would like to be treated with regard to our own individual weaknesses. This does not mean, however, that the Church body should be tolerate of deliberate and open rebellion against the very Pillars of the SDA Faith from within the very ranks of paid representatives within our own schools.

    Open attacks against the Church from within need not nor should they be tolerated without decided resistance and corrective action by the Church in order to protect the body of the Church from ultimate destruction…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment

Comments are closed.