Summary of 60th General Conference Session (2015)

Yes, a careful reading of Paul clearly shows that Jesus replaced the Old Covenant (Mosaic Law). Galatians 2:16 says: “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.”

That’s always been true… even during Old Testament times (Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18). This was understood, at least by some, in the time of Christ (Luke 10:26-28). The Mosaic Laws (outside of the Ten Commandments which are eternal in nature) dealt with laws pointing forward to the coming of Christ as a “shadow of things to come” (Colossians 2:17 and Hebrews 10:1) and were therefore fulfilled, not done away with, by the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus (Matthew 5:17). To suggest that something was wrong with these laws and that is why God had to come up with something else is to suggest that God made an error and is subject to making mistakes. This simply isn’t true. God made no mistake in proving the Israelites with laws that pointed forward to the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. However, these laws, while prophetic and hopeful in nature didn’t justify anyone – which is what Paul is trying to explain to those who might be tempted to think that they could earn their salvation through these laws. Of course, the same thing is also true even of the Ten Commandments. None of these laws are able, in and of themselves, to save anyone.

The Royal Law “has always existed”? “Is not something ‘new’ created after the cross”?

Jesus, however, described it in John 13:34 as a new commandment–“A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.” This is confirmed by Jesus’ message on the Mount of Blessings in Matthew 5, better known as the Beatitudes. He repeatedly said, “You have previously heard thus, but I am now telling you this.” “Moses said such and such, but now I am telling you this.” As the Son of God, He had authority to change the Mosaic Law.

Jesus wasn’t saying anything new at all. It is just that people had forgotten the basis of the Ten Commandments and the Mosaic Laws. They had forgotten that everything is based on the Royal Law of selfless love. They had forgotten that upon the Royal Law hangs all the law and the prophets (Matthew 22:40). This wasn’t something new. This had always been true throughout all of history back before the creation of our world. Jesus was simply reemphasizing a concept that had been lost.

While I would very much like to believe that my atheist friend will be “saved” as per your comment, “If he honestly lives according to the Royal Law, he will not die without a Savior”, this assurance does not reconcile with the words of Jesus:
John 14:6 “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”
John 3:36 “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.”
John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he taht believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”

All these texts are true – given that one has had the opportunity to both hear and understand the truth of them and has consciously and deliberately rejected known truth. When a person has not had such an opportunity, you must deal with the words of Paul on the topic where Paul specifically argues that love fulfills the whole Law (Romans 13:8 and Galatians 5:14) and that even the heathen who have never had the written Law and who have never heard the name of Jesus can be saved by following the Royal Law that God has written on their hearts through the call and power of the Holy Spirit speaking to them (Romans 2:14-15).

As far as your friend is concerned, you simply do not know what he really does or does not honestly understand. That is why you cannot stand in judgment regarding his eternal salvation. Only God knows the heart and moral judgment or savability is based on the state of the heart. Therefore, leave such a judgment up to God who is able to save all those who do not refuse to love the little truth that they have been given to know and understand and have shown love and mercy to others in this life. Such will receive mercy for mercy triumphs over judgement (2 Thessalonians 2:10 and James 2:13).

So, if evolutionists “atheists” are assured of salvation and will not “die without a Savior”, are you not wasting your time in trying to convince people to teach Creationism? Did not my parents waste their whole life as missionaries and church officials in trying to convert people to a belief in Jesus? Why, if all those atheists and evolutionists are going to be saved anyway, why waste your time with futile efforts. Why then, did Jesus command His disciples in Matthew 28 to carry the gospel to the whole world, if indeed everybody was going to be saved anyway?

Where did I ever even suggest that everyone would be saved? That’s not remotely true! Not everyone is going to be saved – for narrow is the way that leads to life and few there be that find it (Matthew 7:14). Come on now, you know very well that I never said that all heathen or all atheists will be saved. What I said is that all those who are striving to live according to the light that they already have are savable – which is, unfortunately, a distinct minority of those who have ever lived.

Beyond this, the Gospel message is a message of hope to those struggling in this life. It has the power to make people’s lives better here in this world and to aid them in the struggles of this life. In this way it also has the power to help people to hang on to the truth and be saved accordingly. Now, I’m not saying here that the Gospel is able to save in and of itself. Salvation is always a gift of God’s Grace. However, the Gospel message of hope makes it easier for one to accept the gift of grace by living according to the Truth that God has given one to know. And, remember, spreading the Gospel message of hope and joy also helps the messenger. Those who hide the light that they have been given and do not share it with others will see their own light dim and eventually go out altogether.

Why then, did Jesus have to die such a cruel death on the cross if there was another pathway to heaven? If everybody could be saved anyway, why did He have to come to this wicked world to be tortured and killed in a very agonizing way? Did not He pray in the Garden prior to His death, that if it be possible, this agony be spared Him?

I never said that there was another pathway to heaven. Jesus is the one and only pathway to heaven for all who enter there. It is just that one need not know the actual name of the pathway that he/she is actual walking upon before heaven itself is reached. Those who live according to the Royal Law in this life, even if they do not know the actual name of Jesus, are in fact listening to His Spirit and following in His Footsteps – even though they do not consciously realize it. They will one day be told, to their own surprise, “Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.” (Matthew 25:40) – and will then be given the crown of life by Jesus Himself.

Now that’s Amazing Grace…

While your teaching of eternal life for evolutionists is incongruent with the words of Jesus, it likewise cannot be reconciled with the teachings of Ellen White, who taught that even the saints cannot be assured of salvation.

That’s just not true – as I’ve mentioned to you several times now. You would know this if you read her writings in a bit more detail for yourself. Here are just a few of the comments she wrote regarding how one can have, right now, the assurance of salvation:

It is essential to believe you are saved (RH, Nov. 1, 1892).

The perishing sinner may say: “I am a lost sinner; but Christ came to seek and to save that which was lost. He says, ‘I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance’ (Mark 2:17). I am a sinner, and He died upon Calvary’s cross to save me. I need not remain a moment longer unsaved. He died and rose again for my justification, and He will save me now. I accept the forgiveness He has promised.”—“Justified by Faith” (a pamphlet published in 1893), p. 7. Reprinted in Selected Messages 1:392.

Immense interests are here involved. We are made partakers of Christ’s sacrifice here in this life, and then we are assured that we shall be partakers of all its benefits in the future immortal life, if we hold fast the beginning of our confidence steadfast unto the end.—Letter 9a, 1891, pp. 1, 2. (To Sister D. S. Gilbert, June 3, 1891.)

Christ saw the helpless condition of the race, and he came to redeem them by living the life of obedience the law requires, and by paying in his death the penalty of disobedience. He came to bring us the message and means of deliverance, an assurance of salvation, not through the abrogation of the law, but through obedience made possible by his merits. – R&H, April 29, 1902

We are not to doubt his mercy, and say, ‘I do not know whether I shall be saved or not.’ By living faith we must lay hold of his promise, for he has said, ‘Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow, though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool’ (ST, April 4, 1892, par. 3).

[emphasis added] See also: Link

Now, the quotes from Ellen White that you cite are simply not in conflict with these statements if read in their proper context (particularly regarding the quotes you cite where Mrs. White is arguing against the heretical concept of “once saved always saved”).

Spiritual Gifts, vol. 1, page 198. “The saints, in that fearful time, after the close of Jesus’ mediation, were living in the sight of a holy God, without an intercessor.”

Where does this passage say that they have no assurance of salvation? It isn’t that they have no savior at this time, it is that there is no further need for mediation or intercession because they are in fact living completely upon the saving power of Jesus and are, during this time, perfectly in line with the Royal Law – which is a perfect fulfillment of the whole Law (Galatians 5:14).

Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 4, pp. 314, 315. “Every soul that has named the name of Jesus Christ has a case pending in the heavenly tribunal. It is court week with us, and the decision passed upon each case will be final.”

Again, where does this passage suggest a lack of assurance of salvation on a day-by-day basis? The trial may be pending, but one can rest assured of its outcome as long as one remains in a saving relationship with Jesus day-by-day.

In Matthew 22, Jesus taught the parable of the King who prepared a marriage feast for His Son, and the invited guests were invited to come, as the feast was ready. They refused, however, and even killed the King’s servants. The message then went forth to anybody BOTH GOOD AND BAD on the highways and byways to come to the feast. All they had to do was wear the wedding garment. However, one chap got in wearing his own garment and was speechless when asked why he wasn’t wearing his wedding garment. He was then bound and cast out into utter darkness, where there was “weeping and gnashing of teeth”.

Again, all this is saying is that no one will get into heaven based on their own righteousness. Everyone is dependent upon the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus for salvation. This is standard Christian teaching…

For me, the interpretation is self-evident. The invited guests were the Jews, the Children of the Promise, They rejected the feast (eternal life through Jesus). Then, the invitation was extended to everybody else, BOTH GOOD AND BAD. All they had to do was wear a wedding garment to cover their own filthy garment. The wedding garment was free, and available only from the King and His Son. However, those who pretended to merit attending the feast without the wedding garment and on the basis of their own “good works” were cast out into utter darkness. Those evolutionists who disdained the King obviously did not even want a wedding garment and got nowhere near the feast, as they did not want nor accept the wedding garment.

Again, this is only true for those who have a conscious understanding of what they’re doing. For those who don’t honestly know or who have never heard, their savability is judged based on what little truth they did know and understand and how they responded to this truth in their lives here on Earth.

Beyond this, you do realize that those who would refuse to take on the covering of Jesus’ righteousness are not truly “good”. They may have the outward appearance of “goodness”. However, on the inside they are nothing but filthy rags. Jesus compared these self-righteousness people to whitewashed tombs (Matthew 23:27). It is only through the power of God that anyone, even the heathen who have never heard the name of Jesus, can be or do anything truly “good” (Mark 10:18).

I will pray that you will see the the words of Jesus as being free to all, yet exclusive to only those who accept the invitation and their wedding garments.

And I will pray that you will one day understand that those who have never even heard the name of Jesus, but have lived according to the light that they were given, will gladly accept the invitation and wear the wedding garments before walking into the wedding feast when Jesus comes again to receive all (even your confused but otherwise honest and loving atheist friend) who are pure in heart (Matthew 5:8).

---

Summary of 60th General Conference Session (2015)

Jesus replaced the Old Covenant Mosaic Law with the Royal Law, also known as the Law of Liberty.

Not quite. Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic Laws, but did not do away with them or replace them with something truly new as if there was something wrong the laws that God Himself originally set in place (Matthew 5:17). God made no mistake in setting up the Mosaic Laws. Also, the “Royal Law” or “Law of Liberty” has always existed and has always been the fundamental basis of the Ten Commandments. The Royal Law brings liberty to all when it is kept – and can in this way be “The Law of Liberty”. Bondage, on the other hand, comes when we do not keep it. To walk in the “Law of Liberty” and fulfill all the Law is to walk in love – for love fulfills the whole Law (Romans 13:8 and Galatians 5:14). Love as the fulfillment of the entire Law is not something “new” created after the cross. The Royal Law of Love is and has always been the basis of all morality for all time – even in Heaven. It is for this reason that no moral code can be kept by fallen humans without the help of God – not the Ten Commandments; not the Mosaic Laws; not the Royal Law itself (Matthew 22:37-40). The problem is that we are inherently selfish creatures who cannot, in and of ourselves alone, be selfless and truly loving toward our neighbors. It takes a miraculous act of God to implant the Royal Law within our hearts and another miraculous act of God to give us the moral power to actually live by this Law. We may resist God’s power in our lives, or we may accept it. That’s our part to play in our own salvation. And, in this way, even the heathen who have never heard the name of Jesus may be saved – according to Paul who argues that “the requirements of the law are written on their hearts.” It goes against the Bible to say otherwise.

In short, everyone knows, as an internal truth, that the “Golden Rule” is good. Those who do not resist the call of the Holy Spirit to strive to live according to this Law will be credited, by God and through his Grace alone, with righteousness. Even your atheist friend, if honestly confused, can therefore be saved through the blood of Jesus if he is honestly listening to the call of the Holy Spirit regarding the Royal Law and is therefore striving to live according to all the light that he understands. If he honestly lives according to the Royal Law, he will not “die without a Savior”. God’s grace will be extended to Him through Jesus because he chose to follow the call of the Spirit. There simply is no additional requirement that the name and life of Jesus be known or understood before a person becomes savable (James 2:8). So, leave the destiny of your friend in the hands of a God who loves him much much more than you do and will do everything in His power to save him. God will save him if he would be safe in heaven once he knows the Truth and is able to recognize all of the lies of Satan that have blinded him all these years (Luke 23:34). No honest person is going to be tricked out of heaven. The lost will be lost because they love the lies that they know to be lies… i.e., they hate the Truth that they’ve been given to know and understand (Psalm 52:3). They perish because they refused to love the truth that they were given to know, be it ever so small, and so be saved (2 Thessalonians 2:10).

Pellagius was a contemporary of Augustine, and argued that Jesus did not come to die a substitutionary death, but rather, to show us how to live a perfect life. Augustine opposed this teaching, which has subsequently been labeled the Pellagian Heresy. Sadly, you and I were taught a heretical salvation doctrine which was based on the writings of Ellen White, who taught that we could never be certain of our salvation, and that even those living at the end of time will be uncertain of their eternal destiny, as they would have to live sinless lives for a period when their Intercessor was unavailable to them.

None of this is true regarding Mrs. White. Again, many times Mrs. White wrote that we can indeed have an assurance of salvation on a day-by-day basis. What she argued against was the concept of “once saved always saved” (as I’ve already explained above). Mrs. White never promoted the Pelagian Heresies such as the notion that we humans can in any way earn our way to heaven or that salvation is based on anything other than God’s grace alone. Beyond this, it was Graham Maxwell, not Ellen White, who fairy recently argued within the Adventist Church that Jesus did not die a substitutionary death. Mrs. White did not promote this notion either, but strongly argued in favor of substitutionary atonement.

Beyond this, I think we are going around in circles at this point…

---

Summary of 60th General Conference Session (2015)
Again, you fail to deal with those Biblical passages that deal specifically with those who have never had opportunity to hear the name of Jesus. You say you have no idea why the fate of the honest heathen might be a source of concern for anyone? – which is very strange coming from a Christian. The fate of the honest heathen reflects upon the character of God and the very basis for your own salvation – the reason why you are savable. And no, salvation is not based on mere lip service that Jesus is our savior. Not everyone who says “Lord Lord” will be saved (Matthew 7:21). It is based on a love of the truth, all truth, that is given to us to understand – however little it may be. In a word, salvation is based on motive – the motive of selfless love.

Also, even though I believe that it is indeed possible for the honest evolutionist to be saved by living according to the Royal Law, I also believe that a correct understanding of doctrinal knowledge provides hope in this life and is able to help one better deal with the struggles in this world and makes it easier for one to be saved through the hope that these doctrines provide. That is why I strive so hard to spread the good news of the Gospel message of hope (which includes the good news of God’s creative power).

Regarding more of your arguments against Ellen White:

Ellen White, on the other hand, taught in the 1890 Review and Herald that no sanctified tongue will ever say, “I am saved”, prior to the 2nd coming of Christ. She also taught that no man can say, “I am saved,” until he has endured test and trial, until he has shown that he can overcome tempation.” The Kress Collection, p. 120.

You evidently haven’t read the context of these statements. While Ellen White often talked about having the “assurance of salvation”, in these particular passages Ellen White is speaking against the concept of “once saved always saved”. She is speaking against the idea that one can say “I am saved and therefore I don’t have to worry about trying to keep God commands or laws.” Here is what she said in context:

We are never to rest in a satisfied condition, and cease to make advancement, saying, “I am saved.” When this idea is entertained, the motives for watchfulness, for prayer, for earnest endeavor to press onward to higher attainments, cease to exist. No sanctified tongue will be found uttering these words till Christ shall come, and we enter in through the gates into the city of God. Then, with the utmost propriety, we may give glory to God and to the Lamb for eternal deliverance. As long as man is full of weakness,—for of himself he cannot save his soul,—he should never dare to say, “I am saved.” It is not he that putteth on the armor that can boast of the victory; for he has the battle to fight and the victory to win. It is he that endureth unto the end that shall be saved. The Lord says, “If any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.” If we do not go forward from victory to victory, the soul will draw back to perdition. We should raise no human standard whereby to measure character. We have seen enough of what men call perfection here below. God’s holy law is the only thing by which we can determine whether we are keeping his way or not. If we are disobedient, our characters are out of harmony with God’s moral rule of government, and it is stating a falsehood to say, “I am saved.” No one is saved who is a transgressor of the law of God, which is the foundation of his government in heaven and in earth. – EGW, RH June 17, 1890, par. 8

See also: Link

As far as “departing from clear instruction”, not everything that seems “clear” to you today was just as clear to someone else in some other time and place – not even to a prophet of God. Another example of this same sort of thing is the fact that Ellen White continued to eat meat for a while after writing against it. It seems like it was hard for her to change some of her own habits to bring them in line with what God had told her to write – a very human shortcoming which actually lends credibility to the claim that she wasn’t making up the “revaluations” she was given out of her own head. Again, prophets of God remain human, subject to error and mistakes of various kinds – even open rebellion on occasion. Yet, it is still clear that God still speaks through them. Consider the stories of Jonah and Balaam as particularly clear examples of this. Therefore, your arguments that God clearly did not speak through Ellen White because of various errors she made is not a reasonable argument or else you’d have to throw out the entire Bible. You have to look specifically at what she claimed God actually said to her.

As far as your claim that God would never deliberately allow for His people to make mistakes or reveal truth in stages in order to test the hearts of His people, you haven’t read the Bible very carefully. Remember how Nathan the prophet told David a story about a rich man taking a poor man’s sheep to feed his guests? – and how this story was deliberately calculated to trick David into judging himself? (2 Samuel 12:6-7). Only in this way would God be able to bring David into a clear realization of his own guilt and cause him to repent. The fact is that God does indeed use such tactics on occasion…

---

Updating the SDA Position on Abortion
Obviously, I’m not talking about women who don’t understand how IUDs and hormonal birth control work. I’m talking about women who do understand. And, according to your cited reference, the majority of women who have such knowledge would not stop using such forms of birth control. Given your position that full human life begins at the moment of conception, such fully-informed women would most certainly be guilty of pre-meditated first-degree murder – before God. Again, morally speaking, it doesn’t matter at all what a human government may or may not say or do. Human governments don’t determine true morality. What really matters is what God thinks. Are such fully-informed women murderers before God? The same as a woman who kills her baby at full term? – just before it would otherwise be born naturally? That’s my question here. I could not make the accusation of murder against a woman using hormonal birth control or IUDs because there really is no unambiguous Scriptural support for your position that full human life begins at the moment of conception – as far as I’m able to tell. That’s the bottom line here.

As far as your argument that the word Gabriel used for John the Baptist before he was born was the same as for a baby that had been born (supporting the equal moral value of the unborn), the Greek that Gabriel used here was: βρέφος. Notice, however, that Gabriel did not use this particular word until John was already six months old (Luke 1:36-41). So, again, as previously discussed with you, I fail to see how Gabriel is defining John as a full human being from the moment of conception here.

After all, an early embryo can split in two, or three or four or five embryos – ending in identical offspring. Yet, although genetically identical, each baby produced in this manner is a unique person. Twins may have identical genetics and indistinguishable bodies, yet they are uniquely different people before God. When did the unique identify of each of these identical twins or triplets, etc., begin? Clearly, not at the moment of conception. You see, the creation of unique genetics isn’t the same thing as the creation of a unique soul or individual person.

You say that I’m unable to provide Scriptural evidence for the dichotomy between the moral value of a person and “its nature”. Well, where is your definitive Scriptural evidence in support for a single cell or small clump of a few cells being fully human? As a relevant aside, where does the Scripture talk about “brain death”? Yet, we do not consider it “murder” or even “manslaughter” to “pull the plug” or harvest the organs of someone who is definitively brain dead – even if the rest of the body is still alive. Why is that do you think? Obviously, because there is no “false dichotomy” here even though Scripture doesn’t specifically address such a situation. The same could very reasonable be true of the human embryo as well. There simply is no definitive Scripture otherwise as far as I can tell.

As far as the LXX, Masoretic, and DSS all “agreeing”, with you I presume, regarding Exodus 21:22-25, well, I just don’t see it that way – and neither do many others, to include many well known historians and Christian leaders and thinkers. There has been a widespread and nuanced theological debate about the beginning of life in the history of Christianity. The idea that personhood begins at the moment of conception is far from a universally agreed upon matter of historical Christian doctrine. When viewed in the long history of the Christian tradition, it is the minority position. In any case, Exodus 21:22-25 does read differently in the LXX and none of the translations seem to definitively support your position. Ancient Jewish scholars certainly didn’t take your perspective. Since the death of a person would be murder or manslaughter, and carry a different penalty, most rabbinic sources deduce from these verses that a fetus has a different status. The Babylonian Talmud states that: “The embryo is considered to be mere water until the fortieth day.” So, I’m afraid that the “weight of evidence” is not clearly on your side here – at least not as best as I am able to tell. Certainly nothing in the New Testament definitively clears up this question in your favor.

The other names your mention present no more convincing arguments than you present – as far as I can tell. They may be less abrasive in their approach (certainly Nic is a very kind and tenderhearted man), but the basic arguments used are very similar to those forwarded by Andrew – just not convincing to me despite my honest efforts to carefully consider them as best as I am able.

Now, it is interesting to me that you actually argue that my position on abortion, “my own definition”, is clear enough to indict those who have committed late-term abortions of murder. If so, I fail to understand your argument that I’ve said and done “nothing” here to make my position clear to the church. The leadership of the SDA Church is well aware of my position.

---

Updating the SDA Position on Abortion
Andrew’s response (Link):
____________

Please notice that by Dr. Pitman’s own argument his very own Adventist Church supports the murder of the unborn (see @25:01) yet notice in his response that he completely ignores this. The Adventist Church, to which Pitman belongs, supports the violent torture and murder of boys and girls in utero yet Pitman spends his time criticizing……Prolife Andrew. To use an analogy, if you belonged to a church that supports rape or slavery why would you then complain about another church member who opposes this? Pitman complains that Andrew is “needlessly abrasive in his tone” but, to further the analogy, at least Andrew doesn’t support rape or slavery! Apparently, an abrasive tone is worth more criticism than supporting or practicing murder. My video is vindicated.

A few additional points:

1.
Pitman does everyone a favor by openly proving the point. He says “Surprisingly, Andrew would evidently be fine with a “lesser charge” such as “involuntary manslaughter” RESPONSE: As was explicitly stated in the video @15:29 onwards it was stated “government to make illegal the manufacture sale and use of chemicals that are used to kill or do kill other human beings Dr Pitman however completely ignores this.” And how does Pitman respond? By doing exactly that, ignoring this fact. Andrew’s opinion is irrelevant to the premise of the argument which Pitman ignores: The government can protect the right to life. It can charge people with crimes for destroying an innocent life. The degree of the crime and one’s culpability is determined by the government, not by Andrew. Pitman, again, just ignores the argument. (See also the video @56:29 onwards).

2.
In his response under the video Pitman says “It’s like arguing that deliberately putting lethal poison into apples or candy or medication at the supermarket isn’t really premeditated murder because the one doing this doesn’t know exactly when someone will actually die. That argument is clearly false on its face.” This is another falsehood because Pitman is confusing (1) birth control pills that prevent implantation with (2) injecting poison into supermarket foods. The big difference between the two is knowledge. In the former most women have no idea how contraceptives work. The vast majority of women who take contraceptives do so ignorant of how they work while, in Pitman’s example, injecting poison relies upon knowledge. Most women do not know how contraceptives work and if they did know it would change their behavior. For example, in 2010 a journal for obstetrics and gynecology reported that 45% of the women said that they would not consider using a birth control method that had post-fertilization effects, and 48% of women said that if they found out they were using a method that had post-fertilization effects, they would stop using that method. Lopez-del Burgo C, Lopez-de Fez CM, Osorio A, Guzmán JL, de Irala J. Spanish women’s attitudes towards post-fertilization effects of birth control methods. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2010 Jul;151(1):56-61. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2010.03.012. Epub 2010 Apr 13. PMID: 20392555. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20392555/

3.
Pitman says “despite Andrew’s adamant assertion that the angel Gabriel defined John the Baptist as being of full moral value from the moment of conception, Gabriel never actually said that. Gabriel was simply noting that the Word of God, the foreknowledge of God, never fails.” RESPONSE: This is both false and absurd as Gabriel is describing a physical situation wherein the nature of the unborn is defined with the exact same Greek words for born sons. Pitman assumes a false dichotomy between “moral value” of the unborn and its nature but he is unable to provide any scriptural evidence for such a dichotomy.

4.
Pitman says “Taken together, all of the translations of this passage [Exodus 21:22-23] leave the question as to the moral value of the human embryo as not clearly answered or defined.” This is false because as was explicitly stated in the video, the Masoretic, LXX, and DSS all agree. The weight of the evidence is against Pitman here. And as was noted above, Pitman is here assuming a dichotomy for which he has no evidence. Furthermore, as was noted explicitly in the video @49:13, Pitman is committing a category error by comparing unintentional vs. intentional. Despite this being addressed explicitly Pitman ignores this as well. (This is the same Pitman @54:16 who criticizes others for rejecting the weight of evidence).

5.
Arguably, one of the biggest falsehoods is when Pitman complains that Prolife Andrew is “often sarcastic and needlessly abrasive in his tone and has a habit of misrepresenting or distorting the positions of those he attacks in his YouTube videos. He’s just not even handed in how he presents and deals with the those who hold differing views. I just don’t see this as being at all Christlike or remotely helpful.” This is false because Prolife Andrew’s videos began in 2017. There have been many prolife voices within Adventism especially since the late 1980s and early 1990s. Pitman complains about Andrew’s tone but doesn’t make such accusations against those who for decades preceded Andrew because he can’t. Nic Samojluk, Doug Yowell, Teresa Beem, Dr. Martin Weber, George Gainer, George Lawson, Dr. Richard Fredericks, etc. were all well known and continue to be outspoken about the Adventist Church’s support for murder. As was mentioned in the video @34:50 Pitman also ignores the arguments of Drs. Robert George and Christopher Tollefson who are some of the most highly respected, articulate voices concerning the ethics of (embryonic) abortion. For these people Pitman can’t make accusations of “abrasive tone” so he simply continues his trend of just ignoring them. This tactic was explicitly noted @58:56 and Pitman just again vindicates the accuracy of the video.

Pitman belongs to a church that has, by his own definition, officially and publicly supported the violent murder of helpless, little children for over fifty years.

---

Updating the SDA Position on Abortion
Andrew Michell (AKA: ProLife Andrew) has put out a lengthy video in response to my article on abortion.

His YouTube Channel can be found here: Link
And his Facebook page here: Link
And his page on X here: Link

While I commend Andrew’s passion to protect the lives of the unborn, I find his argument that full human life begins at the moment of conception unconvicting – at least inconclusive. I mean, if the full moral value of human life truly begins at the moment of conception, as Andrew, the Catholic Church, and many Protestants believe, then all women who use various forms of birth control that block embryologic development (after fertilization) are forms of premeditated murder (to include IUDs and various birth control medications).

• Progestin-only pills (mini-pill): These pills thicken cervical mucus, making it harder for sperm to reach the egg, and thin the lining of the uterus, making it less hospitable for implantation.
• Combined oral contraceptives (the pill), patch, vaginal ring, and injections: These methods prevent ovulation, meaning no egg is released for fertilization, and also thicken cervical mucus and thin the uterine lining.
• Contraceptive implant (Nexplanon): This small rod inserted under the skin releases progestin, reducing pregnancy by reducing ovulation, thickening cervical mucus, and thinning the uterine lining reducing implantation.
• Hormonal IUD: These IUDs release progestin, which changes the cervix and uterus to prevent sperm from reaching an egg and also makes it difficult for a fertilized egg to implant.
• Copper IUD: This IUD uses copper to prevent pregnancy by creating an environment that is unfavorable for sperm and fertilization, and also disrupts the lining of the uterus, making implantation less likely.
• Emergency contraception: Some emergency contraceptive pills, like Plan B, can prevent implantation if taken soon after unprotected sex.

So, are women who use such birth control methods truly guilty of murder? – as Andrew’s position would indicate?

While it is true that the genetics of a person are set at conception, what about the moral worth of a person? You see, science cannot address this question. So, where can one turn to find out the answer? Well, as Christians, the Bible should be our first and primary source to search for answers to moral questions. And, I applaud Andrew for trying to do this. In support of the concept that full human life begins at the moment of conception Andrew cites various Biblical passages. Here are examples of Bible passages that Andrew finds most convincing in this regard:

“Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” – Psalms 51:5

“Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month. For no word from God will ever fail.” – Luke 1:36-37

“For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.” – Psalms 139:13

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” – Jeremiah 1:5

For Andrew, these and other similar passages are conclusive evidence of the full value of humanity starting at the moment of conception. However, many honest Christians just don’t see it this way. Andrew cannot understand how anyone could honestly disagree with him after hearing out his arguments, but I for one am honestly not convinced. And, it’s not because I don’t want to know the truth as God wishes me to know it. It’s because I don’t see anywhere in these passages that Andrew cites where God makes the idea clear that the full value of humanity begins at the moment of conception.

Add to this the passage in Exodus 21:22-25 (discussed in some detail in my article above) that seems to support the conclusion that there is a spectrum as to the moral value of human life during embryological/fetal development. Certainly the writers of the LXX (3rd to 1st century B.C.) supported this conclusion hundred years before the Masoretic Text was written (7th to 10th centuries A.D.). And, while it is true that the Samaritan Pentateuch overlapped the production of the LXX, it is not true that the language of the Samaritan Pentateuch, regarding this passage in Exodus, is definitively unambiguous – certainly not unambiguous enough to discount the LXX translation of this passage. Taken together, all of the translations of this passage leave the question as to the moral value of the human embryo as not clearly answered or defined.

But what about the passages that Andrew cites? Don’t these passages clearly demonstrate God’s Design of the embryo from the very moment of conception? And, if so, is anyone at liberty to destroy or even hinder what God is forming? Well, look at the passage from Jeremiah 1:5 where God explains that he knew of the future existence of Jeremiah before he was even conceived. This passage simply speaks to the foreknowledge of God rather than to the moral value of a human embryo or a single fertilized cell. It really doesn’t answer the question as to if a deliberate ending of an an early pregnancy, such as after a few days of fertilization, is truly considered “murder” in the site of God. Also, despite Andrew’s adamant assertion that the Angel Gabriel defined John the Baptist as being of full moral value from the moment of conception, Gabriel never actually said that. Gabriel was simply noting that the Word of God, the foreknowledge of God, never fails. But what about David claiming that he was “sinful from the moment of conception”? Well, it’s hard for me to definitively argue that this is clearly more than poetic license. After all, Jesus Himself noted that unless a person consciously knows the truth, and deliberately choses to do otherwise, there is no sin (John 9:41; John 15:22; James 4:17). How then can a single cell, or a small cluster of cells that is unable to think or act, be guilty of sin? – beyond the fact that we are conceived and born in a state of moral separation from God? Again, I fail to see such arguments as conclusive support for Andrew’s position that women who use the various forms of birth control described above are guilty of murder. Not even the founders of the SDA Church said anything about full humanity being instantly realized at the moment of conception. Yes, they were opposed to abortion (Link). However, modern birth control methods had yet to be invented. Would they really be opposed to such birth control methods? We cannot know, for sure, but I doubt it. Certainly there is no clear or definitive guidance regarding this particular question from the Bible, the Spirit of Prophecy, or the Founders of the SDA Church.

And, that’s my main concern here. At what point would I be willing to accuse a woman of being a murderer? – worthy of arrest and execution for deliberately taking the life of another human being? I just do not see the clear Biblical support, or support from any other inspired authority, for making such a charge when it comes to a single cell or a tiny ball-shaped cluster of cells. Sure, once the body of the baby is formed, and certainly once the brain of the baby is functional, things become much more clear in my own mind regarding the moral value of the baby as a full human being with all of the moral God-given rights thereof. It’s just that I honestly see no solid basis for accusing a woman of murder for blocking or terminating a pregnancy very early on following conception when the pregnancy consists only of a single cell or a small cluster of cells.

What is also most interesting is that, in his review of my article, Andrew gets a bit upset with me saying that I’m the one using “inflammatory language” such as “first-degree cold-blooded murder”. Surprisingly, Andrew would evidently be fine with a “lesser charge” such as “involuntary manslaughter” (57:00) for women who use birth control that prevents embryonic implantation or who otherwise deliberately abort their babies. I’m actually really surprised by this particular argument since, if one truly views a full human life as beginning at the moment of conception, how can one argue that the deliberate termination of such a life is anything other than a deliberate pre-meditated murder? I mean, it’s almost as if Andrew doesn’t really believe what he’s saying regarding the full value of human life beginning at conception. He does discuss birth control pills or IUDs (starting around the 17-minute mark) that block the implantation of the embryo, thus aborting it, but claims that the mother’s lack of knowledge as to exactly when this happens means that she isn’t really guilty of premeditated murder. Really? It’s like arguing that deliberately putting lethal poison into apples or candy or medication at the supermarket isn’t really premeditated murder because the one doing this doesn’t know exactly when someone will actually die. That argument is clearly false on its face. And, contrary to Andrew’s claims, this has nothing at all to do with the government proving or doing anything. It has nothing to do with human governments at all. It has to do with the morality of a woman deliberately doing something that she knows will likely end pregnancy shortly after conception. If this act really is the taking of full human life, it is premeditated murder before God. There’s just no other term to use if full human life really does begin at the moment of conception.

Another relevant issue involves the use of IUDs and birth control pills to regulate hormonal issues that many women suffer. Andrew suggests that condom use would overcome such issues. However, even if condoms are always and correctly used with every act of intercourse, they have around a 3% failure rate (Link, Link) with some studies showing a failure rate of condoms of up to 16% per year (Link). In other words, even if a condom is being used by the husband every single time he has sex with his wife, at best there is still around a 3% chance of impregnating his wife within a given year. If she is also on hormonal birth control, that means that there is a ~3% chance of killing a real human being if full human life truly begins at conception. How is this a viable solution given the reality of Andrew’s position? Basically, what married couples would be left with is the Catholic concept of not having vaginal sex unless they are actually trying to get pregnant. Just because not every such effort would be successful, as Andrew points out in his video, is completely irrelevant to the required motive that would be necessary before couples could engage in sex without guilt – without the possibility of committing murder. In other worlds, no sexually active woman could ever take advantage of the benefits of hormonal birth control without the guilt of murder on her conscience – even if her husband always uses a condom (which is also less fun by the way).

Andrew also claims that I have done “nothing” to combat abortion, not even late-term abortion (i.e., an induced ending of pregnancy after the 20th week) – despite the fact that I’ve written this particular article calling late term abortion murder in no uncertain terms – and having directly prevented such an abortion when it was in my power to do so as a medical officer in the US Army (something that not even Andrew has been able to do). In fact, several church leaders have contacted me due to their favorable impression of my article on abortion, including religious liberty lawyers. Portions have even been included in religious liberty literature regarding this topic. The religious liberty lawyer for northern and central California conferences, Stephen Allred, included much of my article in the appendix of his book, “Do Justice: The Case for Biblical Social Justice” (Link). And no, he is no relation to the notorious abortion doctor Edward C. Allred, who outright murdered a great many late-term babies.

I guess Andrew feels that this doesn’t go nearly far enough. It’s just that I honestly don’t see his position as entirely accurate or conclusive or his approach to this topic as being more positive than negative. For me, Andrew’s position is without clear Biblical support regarding the claim that full humanity begins at conception and is inconsistent, as noted above, in that he argues for a lesser charge than “murder” for women who deliberately abort very early in pregnancy. He is often sarcastic and needlessly abrasive in his tone and has a habit of misrepresenting or distorting the positions of those he attacks in his YouTube videos. He’s just not even handed in how he presents and deals with the those who hold differing views. I just don’t see this as being at all Christlike or remotely helpful – at least not for me personally. It ends up harming the positive impact that one could have on an important topic, which is probably the reason that Andrew is largely ignored by the leadership of the SDA Church. Now, I understand that he believes that this issue is clearly black and white, to the point that no one his his/her right mind could honestly question his position. Perhaps, however, there are a few, like me, who just don’t have the same mental capacity to grasp what Andrew sees so clearly?

Now, I do appreciate the seriousness and righteousness of Andrew’s effort to save lives. While I may disagree with or fail to understand his arguments or his methods/approach, I do see his motives as being very good indeed! I have no problem with his sincerity or his passion to save lives. The attempt to save lives is a noble effort. However, the process, the method used, is also important. I mean, consider that Jesus, who was trying to save souls as well as lives, was much more patient and tactful in his approach – a pattern that would serve us all well to emulate as we deal with others who don’t see things in quite the same way. Yes, I know that Jesus did rarely call out exceptional cases with very harsh language. However, generally speaking, such methods should be avoided if at all possible – especially when dealing with fellow Christians who are sincere and who are actually trying to learn and to do what it right.

---

Liberty & Health Alliance – An Appeal for Action
God gave rational empirical “scientific” evidence to believe Noah’s message.

Many of the amazing discoveries of medical science in our day, to include the gift of vaccines and an understanding as to how the human immune system actually works, are not opposed to the Scriptures or the Spirit of Prophecy (Ellen White did not opposed the use of vaccines). They are amazing gifts from God that should not be ignored or disregarded.

In this same line, Barbara O’Neill has made numerous false and misleading claims regarding various medical therapies – particularly regarding the treatment of serious conditions like cancer. She does get some things right, but the things she gets wrong significantly overshadow the things she gets right and have significant hurt people. For example, she wraps people who have cancer (which she falsely claims is caused by fungal infections, promoted by antiobiotics and other pharmaceuticals – Link) in towels soaked in baking soda as a means to treat their cancers when such treatments do not help cancer patients in the least. (Link). Yet, she she makes a lot of money peddling these and other such worthless “therapies” to the gullible. She speaks with great confidence and assurance about things that she doesn’t remotely understand since she has no medical training. It’s not the GC or Church leadership or physicians like me making money off of “Big Pharma”. Rather, it’s the snake-oil salesmen like Peter McCullough and Barbara O’Neill, and others like them, who are making quite a lot of money selling their worthless natural remedies and conspiracy theories to their worldwide audiences. Consider that her Misty Mountain Health Retreat near Kempsey charged clients as much as $2,450 per person for a one-week stay and $8,800 for two people for two weeks. She also sells numerous books and travels around giving paid conferences and seminars. Let’s just say that she makes a very good living doing what she does (Link).

It’s not like I’m opposed to natural remedies that actually work, of course. I’m just opposed to those who promote “natural remedies” just because they’re supposedly “natural” when they don’t actually do what they’re claimed to do by those who have no understanding of medical science who make money selling their “remedies” to the gullible and the desperate. If you want to see some natural remedies promoted by someone who actually does known what he’s talking about, look up the YouTube videos put out by the well-known pulmonologist Dr. Roger Seheult.

---

Liberty & Health Alliance – An Appeal for Action
While recommending the vaccines, the vaccine statements clearly left the decision to vaccinate, or not, to the individual. They had nothing to do with government funding (yet another conspiracy theory). These statements were issued in an honest effort to save lives, not to make money. The “medical minds” at the BoT Symposium generally support anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists like Peter McCullough who are known for promoting misleading or downright false claims regarding the pandemic and the mRNA vaccines.

---