Good list of relevant quotes Kevin – regarding Mrs. White’s …

Comment on ‘Yes, Creation!’ at the General Conference Session by Sean Pitman.

Good list of relevant quotes Kevin – regarding Mrs. White’s own view of the nature of her visions…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Sean Pitman Also Commented

‘Yes, Creation!’ at the General Conference Session
@pauluc:

To believe in the inerrancy of Ellen White and to see her either as a liar or infallible is setting ones self up for a similar fall.

There are two extremes here. Walter Rea fell into one extreme view that everything a prophet ever does or says is perfect. Just a quick look at biblical prophets, such as Jonah, will show that this view is obviously mistaken.

The other extreme, of course, is your view that everything a prophet says or does is open to reinterpretation that is completely opposed to the prophet’s own view on what his/her inspiration was or meant. A prophet can be completely off base in many claims of what he/she was shown by God in no uncertain language, yet still be a prophet of God. This view is just as dangerous to the Christian Faith and Gospel Message as was Rea’s view of Inspiration. Again, it has to do with establishing credibility.

For example, lets say that I told you that God had told me that you had a large malignant tumor in your liver. Let’s then say that you took me seriously for some reason and had a CT scan and relevant lab tests done which showed no tumor in your liver. What conclusion would that leave you regarding my claims to have been given privileged information by God? I may have been ever so sincere in my claim. I may have actually thought that God gave me a vision of your true condition. But, given the evidence of the error of my claim, what rational options are available to you regarding the true nature of my “inspiration”? What option do you have besides to conclude that either I was lying to you, that God was lying to me, that I was self-deluded (however honestly), or that I’m just plain nuts?

Again, it all boils down to the credibility of the witness… to predictive power. The Bible itself claims that if the predictions or claims of a prophet do not come true, that prophet is not someone God has sent and to not be afraid or respect the claims of such a person any more. – Deuteronomy 18:22

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


‘Yes, Creation!’ at the General Conference Session
@pauluc:

My position on the inerrancy of Scripture and the writings of Ellen White is the same as Ellen White’s herself. I believe in conceptual and not verbal inspiration. “The writers of the Bible were God’s penmen, not His pen” (1SM 19). This is not the same as the verbal inspiration taught by popular Christian fundamentalism.

It is very clear from the writings of Mrs. White that she claimed to have been given much more than mere conceptual inspiration by God. She claims to have been shown, very directly in vision, true historical and future events as they really did or will occur. She claims to have been shown the literal creation week as it occurred over 7 literal days – the same as the days we now experience. It is very hard to get that wrong. Either she was lying about her visions or God was lying to her by giving her such clear yet false visions of reality. She also claims to have seen, in vision, Adam and Eve and their Fall and expulsion from the Garden of Eden. She claims to have been shown the Noachian Flood and the resulting world-wide devastation… etc.

Now, either she is lying or she is telling the truth. You can’t deny her own claims and how she interpreted her own visions and yet accept her as a true messenger of God. It just doesn’t work like that. The very same thing is true of the SDA view of biblical inspiration. The SDA Church, as an organized body, does not recognize conflicting Genesis narratives, but complimentary narratives.

You may disagree if you wish, but don’t expect to get paid for your views by the SDA Church. It simply is dishonest to think to take a paycheck from the Church while going around publicly undermining what the Church considers to be a Pillar of Faith on the Church’s dime…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


‘Yes, Creation!’ at the General Conference Session
@Geanna Dane:

Many of you have told me repeatedly and with conviction that I have been using the word “evolution” wrong- and I just proved to you from the literature that you folks are the ones who are wrong. At least some of you have now come around on that point which shows some integrity.

You don’t use the word “evolution” wrong per se – since this word is often used so generally as to be pretty much meaningless. It is just that when you are in a discussion regarding the basic disagreement between creationists and evolutionists, your use of the word “evolution” is not meaningful and therefore not effective in contributing something substantive to the discussion because you do not qualify what type of “evolution” you’re talking about.

Not all types of “change over time” are of the same quality. Creationists have no problem with some types of “evolution” or “change over time”. Creationists only have a problem with evolutionists proposing that these changes can produce high qualitative levels of functional complexity in just a few billion years (when trillions upon trillions of years wouldn’t be nearly enough time).

And, your notion that “speciation” (as it is often defined without reference to qualitative functional differences) is equivalent to the creationist idea of “macroevolution” just isn’t so.

Therefore, it would be very helpful if you would qualify your use of the word “evolution” so that people would know what type of “change over time” you’re talking about…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Recent Comments by Sean Pitman

After the Flood
Thank you Ariel. Hope you are doing well these days. Miss seeing you down at Loma Linda. Hope you had a Great Thanksgiving!


The Flood
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…


The Flood
Only someone who knows the future can make such decisions without being a monster…


Pacific Union College Encouraging Homosexual Marriage?
Where did I “gloss over it”?


Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
I fail to see where you have convincingly supported your claim that the GC leadership contributed to the harm of anyone’s personal religious liberties? – given that the GC leadership does not and could not override personal religious liberties in this country, nor substantively change the outcome of those who lost their jobs over various vaccine mandates. That’s just not how it works here in this country. Religious liberties are personally derived. Again, they simply are not based on a corporate or church position, but rely solely upon individual convictions – regardless of what the church may or may not say or do.

Yet, you say, “Who cares if it is written into law”? You should care. Everyone should care. It’s a very important law in this country. The idea that the organized church could have changed vaccine mandates simply isn’t true – particularly given the nature of certain types of jobs dealing with the most vulnerable in society (such as health care workers for example).

Beyond this, the GC Leadership did, in fact, write in support of personal religious convictions on this topic – and there are GC lawyers who have and continue to write personal letters in support of personal religious convictions (even if these personal convictions are at odds with the position of the church on a given topic). Just because the GC leadership also supports the advances of modern medicine doesn’t mean that the GC leadership cannot support individual convictions at the same time. Both are possible. This is not an inconsistency.