@Paul: I mean seriously…Don Schneider is on your side …

Comment on Schneider talks about La Sierra by BobRyan.


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,


BobRyan Also Commented

Schneider talks about La Sierra

@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,


Schneider talks about La Sierra
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,


Schneider talks about La Sierra

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,


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