Dear Geanna: I must strongly disagree …

Comment on ‘Yes, Creation!’ at the General Conference Session by Kevin Paulson.

Dear Geanna:

I must strongly disagree with your statement that “the vast majority of Adventists” don’t care about their church’s position on creation vs. evolution. I would truly like to know on what basis you believe our people are so apathetic about so basic a Biblical issue. When I mingle with our people at the grassroots, I find that the “vast majority” (your words) can’t understand why this is even an issue. They can’t figure out what business anyone who believes in evolution has claiming to be a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church–let alone an employee of one of our institutions.

As to suggestions of how to more firmly develop our spiritual connection with God, how about getting back to the Bible and the writings of the Spirit of Prophecy, and leaving all the other stuff alone for a period of time? We have far too much “spirituality” in contemporary Adventism which refuses to let itself be defined and guided by the written counsel of God. Spirituality is not enough–the Dalai Lama is a very spiritual being, but I wouldn’t want him teaching at our Seminary! It is God’s transcendent Word–revealed both in Scripture and the writings of Ellen White–which must exclusively define our worldview, our beliefs, and our lifestyle.

Nothing more.

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson

Kevin Paulson Also Commented

‘Yes, Creation!’ at the General Conference Session
Dear Pauluc:

Your worry should not be about offending people. You should be worried about offending God. Your description of your spiritual worldview is classic existentialism–the kind of philosophy that in the end, despite your disclaimer, very much leaves the believer “without chart or compass.” How can there be “objective reality” when there is no transcendent measure for determining this? You are essentially in the same position as Martin Heidegger, the existential German philosopher who was estranged from Rudolf Bultmann because he (Heidegger) collaborated with the Nazis. What Bultmann failed to consider is that he himself had done away with transcendent absolutes by his higher critical approach to the Bible, thus leaving him no real grounds for criticizing what Heidegger had done.

This is what happens when absolutes are overthrown. It happened to European Adventists as well during this same period, due to the baleful influence of L.R. Conradi and his agreement with the Kaiser that Adventists would take up arms and break the Sabbath. Doing away with the Spirit of Prophecy was also attendant to this disaster. Only strict, unerring faithfulness to the written counsel of God keeps our Christian witness consistent and our own morals intact.

I continue to be both amused and saddened by your talk of “grace.” For the umpteenth time, I will say there is no room for grace if one believes in evolution. The brutal, merciless process of natural selection is the way nature and humanity (which according to evolution is a product of nature) advances and makes progress. No room for mercy, forgiveness, grace, or Jesus can be found in such a system.

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson


‘Yes, Creation!’ at the General Conference Session
Dear Pauluc:

I am fascinated that you ignore all the Ellen White statements I have cited, which clearly indicate Ellen White’s own awareness of her prophetic role and its meaning. We can argue at length as to the reason Walter Rea ended up as he did. But the statements I quoted from Ellen White are absolutely clear as to the “all or nothing” nature of her authority. The fact that you have not responded to these statements gives evidence to all in this discussion that you cannot answer this plain evidence.

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson


‘Yes, Creation!’ at the General Conference Session
Dear Pauluc:

You complain that those of us defending Ellen White’s prophetic authority are giving “no alternative,” that either Ellen White was “inerrant or she is a liar.”

Guess what? That is precisely the dilemma Ellen White herself sets up for those confronting the claims of her writings. Consider the following:

“Many times in my experience I have been called upon to meet the attitude of a certain class, who acknowledged that the testimonies were from God, but took the position that this matter and that matter were Sister White’s opinion and judgment. This suits those who do not love reproof and correction, and who, if their ideas are crossed, have occasion to explain the difference between the human and the divine.
“If the preconceived opinions or particular ideas of some are crossed in being reproved by testimonies, they have a burden at once to make plain their position to discriminate between the testimonies, defining what is Sister White’s human judgment, and what is the word of the Lord. Everything that sustains their cherished ideas is divine, and the testimonies to correct their errors are human—Sister White’s opinion. They make of none effect the counsel of God by their tradition” (3SM 69).

“God is either teaching His people, reproving their wrongs, and strengthening their faith, or He is not. This work is of God, or it is not. God does nothing in partnership with Satan. My work… bears the stamp of God, or the stamp of the enemy. There is no half-way work in the matter. The Testimonies are of the Spirit of God, or of the devil” (5T 671).

“Yet now when I send you a testimony of warning and reproof, many of you declare it to be merely the opinion of Sister White. You have thereby insulted the Spirit of God” (5T 64).

“In these letters which I write, in the testimonies I bear, I am presenting to you that which the Lord has presented to me. I do not write one article in the paper expressing merely my own ideas. They are what God has opened before me in vision—the precious rays of light shining from the throne” (5T 67).

“You have talked over matters as you viewed them, that the communications from Sister White are not all from the Lord, but a portion is her own mind, her own judgment, which is no better than anybody else’s judgment and ideas. This is one of Satan’s hooks to hang your doubts upon to deceive your soul and the souls of others who will dare to draw the line in this matter and say, This portion which pleases me is from God, but that portion which points out and condemns my course of conduct is from Sister White alone, and bears not the holy signet. You have in this way virtually rejected the whole of the messages, which God in His tender, pitying love has sent to you to save you from moral ruin” (3SM 68-69).

“In the testimonies sent to Battle Creek, I have given you the light God has given to me. In no case have I given my own judgment or opinion. I have enough to write of what has been shown me, without falling back on my own opinions” (3SM 70).

“I have my work to do, to meet the misconceptions of those who suppose themselves able to say what is testimony from God and what is human production. If those who have done this work continue in this course, satanic agencies will choose for them.
“Those who have helped souls to feel at liberty to specify what is of God in the Testimonies and what are the uninspired words of Sister White, will find that they were helping the devil in his work of deception” (3SM 70).

“What reserve power has the Lord with which to reach those who have cast aside His warnings and reproofs, and have accredited the testimonies of the Spirit of God to no higher source than human wisdom? In the judgment, what can you do who have done this, offer as an excuse for turning from the evidences He has given you that God was in the work?” (3SM 70).

In other words, my brother, the “all or nothing” dilemma which you seek to disdain is not the invention of some narrow-minded conservative Adventist, supposedly giving Ellen White’s writings more authority than she herself gave them. This is one of the great myths perpetrated by so-called “progressive” Adventists. The above statements are emphatically clear that Ellen White saw her writings as error-free as regards Biblical, doctrinal, and spiritual issues. It is she herself who says, as one of the above statements makes clear: “The Testimonies are of the Spirit of God or of the devil” (5T 671).

There is no middle ground possible here. It is like what Josh McDowell says of Jesus. When confronting His claims He must be seen either as “Lord, liar, or lunatic.” With regard to Ellen White’s claims for her writings, they must be seen–on the basis of her own assertions–either as wholly from God or wholly from Satan.

Perhaps a word should be said about Walter Rea’s work, since you have brought it up. Anyone who has read The White Lie, as I have, is well aware that this dear man’s work is suffused with bitterness not only at Ellen White and the Seventh-day Adventist Church, but at Christianity as well. God and His dealings with His ancient people, along with heaven itself, are scoffed at in his book. I believe we are quite wide of the mark to assume that belief in the inerrancy of inspired writings was Rea’s problem, and that honest inquiry presumably forced him to reassess his stand. Even a quick peruse of his book is sufficient to persuade the objective reader that a deep-seated hatred of most (if not all) things spiritual lay at the foundation of his attack on Ellen White’s credibility.

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson


Recent Comments by Kevin Paulson

NAD President, Education Director Dialog with La Sierra Campus Community
To all participants in the present discussion:

If we’re going to address the issue of how the origins debate should be handled in the public schools, I think we should recognize from the outset that this is most different from the basic question raised by this Web site, which of course is the question of whether theories of origins contrary to Scripture, the Spirit of Prophecy writings, and fundamental Adventist beliefs should be promoted in a Seventh-day Adventist classroom or pulpit.

As a strong Biblical conservative, I am constrained both to support the Genesis creation account as well as the separation of church and state. Seventh-day Adventists have historically supported both on strict Bible grounds. As strongly as I oppose within the church the teaching of ideas and practices which contradict God’s written counsel, I oppose with equal strength the efforts of certain Christian to impose Christian teachings and personal values through civil law.

With this in mind, I believe the best approach to origins in a public school classroom is a modified version of a proposal advanced by the late Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard, very much a devout evolutionist. Gould argued that the teaching of creationism did in fact belong in the teaching of science in public schools, but that it should be covered specifically when addressing the history of scientific thought. I would take this further than Gould and say evolution belongs in that section also.

Technically, as I see this discussion, neither creation nor evolution constitutes strict science, as science requires both observation and experimentation, and no one was present when the natural world came into existence. Science can be summoned to support both theories, but at the bottom line, both concepts invariably lead away from science into the realm of philosophy and faith.

As with other issues of theology and morality which at times enter the public square, it has long been my conviction that the objective evidence supporting the Biblical worldview is sufficiently decisive that the spurs of civil coercion need not be used to promote it to the larger society. The Christian community has sufficient resources and a massive popular presence in our culture, and these should be utilized to set before the public the evidence supporting the claims of the Bible and the Christian faith. Most of all, Christians need to focus less on impacting society through politics and more on impacting their neighbors and society in general through the power of a godly Christian example. From my experience, even the most secular minds have trouble gainsaying the power of the latter.

Finally, I think Phil Brantley needs to define a bit more carefully what he means by “mainstream,” when he says creationism is not a “mainstream” view. Does he mean mainstream in terms of accepted scientific thought, or does he refer to popular opinion? If the latter is considered, it might help to note that every poll I have seen indicates a large percentage (often a majority) of the American public at least, holds to a view of origins closer to Genesis than to Darwin.

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson


NAD President, Education Director Dialog with La Sierra Campus Community
Perhaps it helps to remember that while Aaron was a facilitator, Moses was a watchman. The latter are the sort of leaders God seeks in a time of crisis such as this.

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson


Former LSU student letter reveals professor’s agenda
Dear “Professor Kent”:

You seem to forget, once again, that neither Christ, His love, His forgiveness, nor His cross would be necessary if Darwinian macro-evolution is the story of humanity’s origins.

And once again you give evidence of your embrace of the false dichotomy so popular in modern and postmodern Adventism between “Christ” and the “doctrines.” You insist that correct doctrine will save no one. And you are wrong. Over and over again, in Holy Scripture, truth is declared to be the means of salvation (Hosea 4:6; Matt. 4:4; John 8:31; II Thess. 2:13; I Tim. 4:16). Such truth must be internalized within the heart, to be sure, but it is still the means by which God saves men and women.

You cannot separate Jesus from a literal understanding of the early chapters of Genesis, since repeatedly He made clear in His teachings that He took these events literally. The same holds true for the other New Testament authors. You cannot have the Gospel and evolution too. You cannot embrace Jesus and relegate the Genesis Flood to mythic or mere literary status. It is impossible.

The longer this discussion proceeds, the clearer it will be that you and all others who think as you do are in the wrong church. It is tragic you insist on putting yourself through the needless pain and agony of living a lie.

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson


Former LSU student letter reveals professor’s agenda
Though I had briefly reviewed the letter from Jason and Janelle Shives some days ago, tonight was the first time I actually sat down to read the entire document. It is a masterful though tragic account of a most disturbing situation.

I have known Jason Shives for some time, and have admired him for his courage in standing for truth. He and I share a common experience in having both served as president of the Loma Linda University student body.

What is needed is a grassroots movement of godly students like Jason and Janelle, who will not sit and listen quietly to the perversion of truth in Adventist classrooms. Leaders with the courage to act are needed, most assuredly, but when a groundswell of concern from the young becomes evident, they can act with the awareness that the rising generaiton does not, after all, wish to see the church’s teachings trashed, as the liberals devoutly believe.

If the Bible means anything at all, revival and reformation involve drastic changes in the faith and practice of a community which for a time has departed from the written counsel of God. In the Bible story, this has generally meant the removal of unfaithful personnel from positions of influence and leadership. Most assuredly this must happen in contemporary Adventism. If it means closing departments or even institutions until we can staff them with faithful teachers, we must be prepared to do this.

Let us keep in particular our new General Conference President in our prayers, as the task of guiding the denominational ship of state rests to a large degree in his hands.

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson


An apology to PUC
Dear Karl:

I truly appreciate your clarity and your speaking from the heart as you have. PUC is my alma mater also. And the things you have described I have heard described by a number of credible eyewitnesses. This climate of doctrinal indifference and postmodern spirituality, in which any and all viewpoints are given equal value (except of course those actually challenging the undergirding mindset of these folks), is a scandal of unapralleled proportions.

You are so right about constituents and school administrators turning a blind eye. I can only hope this is now starting to change, with the agitation of those like the organizers of this Web site, and the tone set by our new General Conference President.

I truly believe, however, that the real root of this tragedy is not so much postmodernism as those popular theories of salvation in modern Adventism which have devalued the necessity of correct doctrine and practical holiness. Once salvation is seen to be secure apart from correct belief and a godly life, once we accept the lie that error and sin are the unavoidable companions of even the sanctified believer, it became inevitable that erroneous worldviews and sinful practices would become less and less offensive in the church.

We need a thorough revival and a thorough reformation, and a consequently thorough cleansing of the ranks. I have been studying lately the Bible stories of revival and reformation in the faith community. Believe me, the process was never a feel-good, everybody-come-together-unconditionally type of event. False worship was destroyed. Wrong practices were condemned and expelled from the camp. Apart from such real-life consequences, these cherished words become just another empty slogan.

Thanks again, Karl, for your candor.

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson