Thanks, Sean, for your thoughts. You and I approach things …

Comment on It’s about authority by Sandra K. Reiber.

Thanks, Sean, for your thoughts. You and I approach things differently it seems, which is probably a result of differences in how our minds work. I don’t see that the only choices we have of determining truth are either “emotional” or “scientific” as you put it, unless you include the spiritual aspects in the “emotional” arena, in which case they can be moved upon and guided by the Spirit of God.

Certainly, the Bible needs to be intelligible to us in relation to our “external” world. But we are told by God’s modern-day messenger that there will come a time when Satan will so obfuscate the truth, so dazzle human eyes with his beautiful counterfeits, that even the “elect” will not be able to trust their senses (with which we determine “scientific truth”), and that the Bible will be the only source we can rely on for truth. So if you are subordinating your belief in the Bible to scientific discoveries, that seems dangerous to me. That is the core of my concern here.

1John 5:10 says that “The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony [or witness] in himself.” So however nebulous or “emotional” or subject to counterfeit you may consider it to be, the inner movings of the Holy Spirit are sure and solid. The most tangible, physical, apparently obvious realities of nature are just as subject to counterfeit. And the human mind is very prone to self-deception. Therefore it stands to reason that we must be led in our quest for “scientific truth” just as much as “spiritual truth.”

You said, “I do not consider such methods, short of direct Divine revelation, nearly as reliable as the scientific method of approaching truth.” Well, how would we know “direct Divine revelation” when we saw it? There is nothing on this earth, so infiltrated as it is by the adversary, that is straightforward–in the physical world any more than the spiritual. He has used every means he knows to obscure the truth in the spiritual world; can we say that God has not allowed him to do the same in the physical? I know you believe Satan has affected the physical world. So I’m just saying the same issues are in play whether we speak of the spiritual (which you might associate more readily with emotions) or the physical (the scientific realm, though the emotional in the form of bias is by no means absent).

If a person is sincerely searching for truth, comes upon a Bible, reads it, remains open to the Holy Spirit’s promptings (whether or not he recognizes such an entity), he will know of the truth, whether it be of God or whether it be a fairy tale. This is an experience that many people have had, and it attests to the divine nature of God’s Word. A power from beneath can “inspire” a person to accept “another gospel,” but the fruits will tell from whence it derives.

Perhaps you do know Cliff Goldstein’s thinking better than I do. I understood his email response to me to be saying that he is so confident that science can never disprove the Bible to his satisfaction that he makes those bold statements. That is what I got from his calling them “rhetorical.” In other words, I don’t get the idea that he holds his faith in the Bible tentative to nothing convincing (to him) being found in the scientific world to refute it. Whereas I do get that idea from you. If I am incorrect I’ll be very happy to know that.

Good discussion!

Sandi

Sandra K. Reiber Also Commented

It’s about authority
I very much appreciate Shane’s observations. It reminds me of things I’ve read about some elements in the Emerging Church movement. The same mentality about “I don’t believe in the Bible, I believe in Jesus,” seems to be pervasive.

It is interesting that the great Reformer, John Calvin, in arguing against the Church’s assertion that Scripture could not be authenticated without its (the church’s) authority says, “Those whom the Holy Spirit has inwardly taught truly rest upon Scripture, and the Scripture indeed is self-authenticated; hence it is not right to subject it to proof and reasoning. And the certainty it deserves with us, it attains by the testimony of the Spirit. For even if it wins reverence for itself by its own majesty, it seriously affects us only when it is sealed upon our hearts through the Spirit. Therefore, illuminated by his power, we believe neither by our own nor by anyone else’s judgment that Scripture is from God; but above human judgment we affirm with utter certainty (just as if we were gazing upon the majesty of God himself) that it has flowed to us from the very mouth of God by the ministry of men. [He says this, even though he did not believe in word inspiration.] We seek no proofs, no marks of genuineness upon which our judgment may lean; but we subject our judgment and wit to it as to a thing far beyond any guesswork!”

We have come a long way from the Reformation! I plan to read on from that quote. I believe he goes on to give evidence of the Bible’s divine nature. But what a statement! There is much for us to ponder on and learn from. How he exalted the Holy Scriptures!


It’s about authority
Sean Pitman:

I agree with your last three paragraphs. God certainly does present evidence to us that appeals to our reason. Jesus was appealing to those disciples’ minds through the prophecies of the (OT) Scriptures, with the assumption that they already had accepted the Scriptures as God’s word. The question was whether they would accept (which of course they did) that He was the fulfillment of them.

From your comments about Bible prophecy (your last paragraph), I gather that you are using the word “scientific” in a broad sense. I like that. It seems you are saying that the historical fulfillment of the prophecy is the “external” validation for the “internal” predictions.

You state, “The notion that the Bible has a Divine origin is not an internally derived truth. It must be studied and investigated and tested against other external realities with the use of our higher God-given reasoning capabilities.” I’m not sure what you mean by that, but apparently from your illustrations your are not restricting the “external realities” to scientific discoveries (as we use the term today), which is the premise I was working with in my earlier remarks.

You say, “God does not judge against us if we are honestly deceived.” I’m not sure it’s that straightforward. Consider the following quote, which is a description of the Laodicean church: “What greater deception can come upon human minds than a confidence that they are right, when they are all wrong? The message of the True Witness finds the people of God in a sad deception, yet honest in that deception. They know not that their condition is deplorable in the sight of God. While those addressed are flattering themselves that they are in an exalted spiritual condition, the message of the True Witness breaks their security by the startling denunciation of their true situation of spiritual blindness, poverty, and wretchedness. The testimony, so cutting and severe, cannot be a mistake; for it is the True Witness who speaks, and his testimony must be correct.” {RH, September 16, 1873 par. 5}. Just something to consider.

Sandi Reiber


It’s about authority
To Sean Pitman: After sending my previous comment, I got curious about how Clifford Goldstein would respond to your statement: “I for one would no longer be a Seventh-day Adventist, or a Christian for that matter, if I ever became convinced that the modern theory of evolution was in fact the true story of origins. This view would falsify too many key testable elements of the Bible for me and I would have to abandon it has having any significant credibility regarding physical or metaphysical realities.

“Clifford Goldstein, you might be interested to know, holds a similar view. He would also leave Adventism and Christianity if the testable statements regarding physical reality within the Bible were ever convincingly falsified in his mind.” – Sean Pitman

But anyway, I emailed Clifford Goldstein, shared with him your comment, and suggested he might want to add his own. He sent me a response and gave me permission to quote it here:

My statements were purely hypothetical; I understand that science really has a hard time “proving” much of anything. My point, instead is that were I somehow convinced that evolution were true, I would reject the Bible. It’s a rhetorical way of saying that if evolution were true, the Bible can’t be. That’s my point. I am an avid student of the philosophy of science, and so I am not scared by science because I know how tentative and contingent it all is.

Hope that helps clarify things a bit.

Cliff

I don’t know if that was your understanding of his position, but it doesn’t seem quite the same to me. If it is, that may mean I have misinterpreted your position.

I believe as Shane Hilde said, that the Bible is “self-attesting,” and not to be accepted with the proviso that if something (in science) comes along that convinces me the Bible is wrong I will have to reject it. The only question is whether we individually are going to be convinced, via whatever means it takes for us to come to that acceptance, that the Bible is inspired of God and an “infallible guide” for our life (as EGW puts it, Maranatha 44.2, SR 368.1, etc.).

God bless,

Sandi Reiber


Recent Comments by Sandra K. Reiber

Adventist Review: Pastors Who Don’t Believe
No way do I intend to jump into the fray. Just want to say I appreciate very much Danyne’s comment–squeezed as it is into the midst of the “big guns” involved in the back-and-forth of this volatile discussion. But I might venture this (tongue-in-cheek) in defense of the English language: a smiley face is not a sufficient defense (justification, excuse) for poor grammar (although I understand that in England it is the uppercrust who use the word “aint”).

I know men can have, for example, strong parleys on the Senate floor, or face off in the courtroom, when outside those arenas they are (or at least seem to be) the best of friends. Might that be the case here? I hope.

I fear I might know who that pastor is, or could be. Danyne’s final thought is the one to cling to. Amen.

SKR


Jay Gallimore comments on evolution conflict
AMEN!! May God keep us faithful.


Educate Truth’s purpose and goals
I would like to add my “two cents'” worth of support and encouragement for what Shane is doing. Thank you for that very good explanation and for attempting to maintain a Christlike attitude in the midst of this most contentious issue!

I check in to this Website on a regular basis to see what progress if any is being made in the hoped-for resolution. Sometimes I first see reproduced articles from the Review here, before someone tells me about it or I hear someone talking about it. So it is a good resource and a worthwhile forum for (hopefully) constructive discussion.

Sandi


ANN reports on affirmation of creation and FB #6 enhancement
Richard Osborn’s comments strike a chord of sympathy with me. I believe he has a very good point. I have myself refrained from making comments at times because of a certain tone that comes across to me.

Assuming there are legitimate reasons to be concerned by Dr. Bietz’s response, perhaps it would be well to first present the background (as has been done now by Dr. Pitman) for the concern and even then to refrain from drawing firm conclusions since we cannot read hearts.

When we are writing it is easier to be misunderstood that we are being uncharitable when we don’t mean to be. That is another thing to keep in mind.

It is disappointing that it will be another five years before a more explicit version of FB6 will be voted on. However, I comfort myself with the knowledge that President Wilson clearly recognizes the seriousness of the issue and has come out strongly for taking the Bible as the “authentic, true, literal” word of God; and by the fact that those who do that and allow God’s Spirit to guide them will not be misled. We must as EGW says, yield our minds to “the great I AM,” recognizing our finitude and dependence on Him to guide us. But those who are too confident in their own reasoning and mental ability will be left to believe a lie.


CCC Requests “Decisive and Conclusive Resolution” from LSU
I want to add my enthusiastic Amen! to those of the other comments regarding this letter from the CCC Executive Committee. And I want to express my appreciation for what Educate Truth has been doing to bring this issue before our people.

I am encouraged to believe, by what I have already heard and read, that the creation fundamental belief will be considerably strenghtened to eliminate all ambiguity.

We need to keep praying for our leaders and delegates at the Atlantic session (concerning not only this topic but all the church’s business).

Sandi Reiber