Comment on Ravi Zacharias: Should Church Members be Held to a Higher Standard? by BobRyan.
Susie has a good point in the context of the discussion (and it is going unnoticed) – which is that SDA unversity professors are a far cry from the darkened state of the gentile who has no scripture at all. If that gentile is “without excuse” as Paul says in Rom 1:18-32 – how much more “cover in ignorance” does the SDA professor suppose he/she has as compared to the Barbarian of Romans 1 with no access to scripture at all?
Another point that needs to be addressed. Even if you disregard the case of the evolutionist SDA professors entirely – what of those appointed to positioons of oversight – who “claim’ they know that the 7 day creation event is fact and yet work to sustain evolutionism in our schools?
Let us say for the sake of argument that we have a university administrator or a Union president/board-chair who actually knows a thing or two about the 7 days of Creation in the Bible â€“ knows they are literal as shown to Moses, knows they were literal days shown to Ellen White by her own testimony â€“ but â€œallowsâ€ the evolution fiasco â€œanywayâ€ because he/she thinks it will be wayyyy too painful to shut this thing down. (Who knows â€“ but that such a person may have been at the helm for many years, and others for just a few years).
In this case it is not a problem with â€œdoes not know what the Bible saysâ€.
Question â€” is that a â€œmoral issueâ€?
What “air cover” do they have for those actions (supporting what they KNOW Ellen White calls “Disguised infidelity”) as compared to what Paul calls “the barbarians” of Romans 1 – whom Paul says are “without excuse”?
BobRyan Also Commented
Ravi Zacharias: Should Church Members be Held to a Higher Standard?
1. In a discussion with anyone on the subject of evolutionism vs science we often appeal to logic and reason and the fact that science does not support evolution’s teaching that birds come from reptiles or that cells pop up out of non-living materal or that static genomes in eukaryote systems “acquire” new coding genes over time.
Thus the argument is from evidence to conclusion based on reason.
2. Reasons for believing the Bible account of origins is not based on science “alone”. It is not based on “an eyewitness video” of God creating the world in 7 days so believing in the bible account does have some science support for young life and young earth but does not have a “reproducible experiment” where God steps in the lab and creates things for scientists to observe as often as they wish to conduct the experiement. A degree of faith is always part of that decision to accept the Bible’s eyewitness details.
3. By contrast it takes no faith at all – and it only requires very basic reasoning and reading skills to simply “observe” that the Bible records a 7 day creation event instead of a 4.5 billion year creation event. Dawkins got it, Darwin got the point, and most Bible believing Christians today get it. Thus to fail to master this very basic step represents a significant departure from the tried and true reason-to-conclusion methods central to the evoltion-vs-science in point 1 above.
Hence the much larger “divide” when it comes to Bible Believing Christians vs T.E as opposed to atheists or agnostics that choose to believe in evolutionism.
Ravi Zacharias: Should Church Members be Held to a Higher Standard?
Ken – you accept evolution from an agnostic POV and the simple fact is that most Bible believing Christians here see a perfect harmony between the atheist or agnostic world view – and evolution. Hence your position has a lot more credibility than the transparently compromised bible-bending efforts “of some” theistic evolutionists trying to marry “SIX days you shall labor…for in SIX days the Lord made” to evolution’s “birds come from reptiles over deep time” idea.
you said –
Consider that just perhaps, Darwin and Einstein were seeking perfection in their own unique way. Might their genuine efforts have been just as divinely inspired as EGWâ€™s? And if only God knows the heart of men/woman can any of us really say?
Given the agnostic world view as context that suggestion makes sense.
Given the Bible view of Christians however – it is violates key Bible statements on how prophecy works – such as 2Peter 1:20-21 “Holy men of old moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God” and of course Is 8:19-20 “To the law and to the testimony if they speak not according to this word they have no light”. (And I am saying this primarily in reference to Darwin. I don’t know that Einstein ever made any theological arguments about the Bible not be true — by direct contrast to Darwin on that point).
There is no indication at all from John 1 â€œHe is the light that coming into the world â€“ enlightens every manâ€ or John 16 â€œhe convicts the World of sin and righteousness and judgementâ€ really means â€œnew Covenant Gospel transformation with Law written on the Heartâ€.
The Royal Law of Love is written on the hearts of all mankind â€“ even on the hearts of those who do not listen to or live by this internal conviction of truth regarding how one should treat oneâ€™s neighbor.
In short, everyone has been given a conscience.
We need to be very carefull when dealinng with the text of scripture.
It is true that all have a conscience, and that the “World” is convicted of “sin and righteousness and judgment” John 16.
But at no point does the Bible text ever equate that to the New Birth or the New Covenant promise of Heb 8.
General conviction of sin – is very different from the Gospel transformation that is the New Covenant in Heb 8 and Jer 31. When you read the actual text you see that in the case of the New Covenant – the Law is written on the heart AND all sin is forgiven AND the sinner is fully adopted back into the family of God.
That is in fact the ONE Gospel of Gal 1:6-11 and there is no text in all of scripture stating that the Law of God is written on the heart appart from that process.
That is a very different thing from the convicting of the lost done by the Holy Spirit that “convicts the WORLD”. Never is “Convicting the world” said to be “writing the law of God on the heart of all people in the world” in scripture.
The points must come from scripture itself.
Recent Comments by BobRyan
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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