Sean – I completely agree with your point that atheists, …

Comment on Ravi Zacharias: Should Church Members be Held to a Higher Standard? by BobRyan.

Sean – I completely agree with your point that atheists, agnostics (and even many Christians who now swear allegiance to evolution) will tell us that they are entirely convinced of their positions. And I suspect they are right.

In John 16:2 Christ said that the Bible-informed leaders of the Jewish church would go so far as to kill the followers of Christ and claim “They are doing service to God”. In Matt 12:24 the Jewish leaders attribte to Satan the work of the Holy Spirit in Christ’s ministry. In Matt 12:31 Jesus said that the Holy Spirit was condemning such things. In Ellen White’s day many who charges that her visions were “of the devil” witnessed that they “Actually felt blessed” for having said it.

Replacing light with darkness is a long subtle course and many who do it are not aware of the line in every detail. In 2Thess 2 God says he “turns them over to strong delusions… who do not receive a love of the truth”. I believe they are “sincerely” deceived at that point. No pretending on their part.

It works the same way with the New Birth according to Christ in John 3 – people are not always aware of just where and when that process started – they ony realize it at the end when they decide to accept salvation.

But in Romans 1 we have the veil pulled back – just as we see it in John 16. God tells us that no matter what their claims or how sincerely they may be rejecting light today – this course did not start out with God “asleep at the wheel”. He was convicting them from the very start and the Romans 1 element left them without excuse – at the very start.

In Romans 9 God describes a principle where over time the heart becomes hardened against the convicting work of the Holy Spirit. If you ask someone at various points along that way if they are “sincere” I believe a great many will say “yes”.

In Matt 7 those who complain to Christ when they come up in resurrection saying “Lord lord did we not do all these things in your name??” – are “sincere” in their complaint – 100%.

Scripture says “The heart is deceitful” and so “who can know it”. Jer 17:9

Human history shows that self-deception is the hall mark of rebellion and this rule holds true going all the way back to Eve. Ellen White describes Eve as fully convinced after having eaten the forbidden fruit – that the serpent was right and that she was entering into a higher state of existence – and that this would be a wonderful thing for Adam as well.

When people tell me they are sincere and fully convinced (on a great number of topics where the Bible “differs” with their beliefs) I never doubt them. But I do know from Romans 1 and Romans 10 (and John 16) that there is a certain basic list of convictions that though they may have ignored them to the point of oblivion by this time – were at one time “noticed” by them.

William Miller was said to be convicted about the truth of the October 1844 event – but was mislead by his close friends and advivsors after so long a struggle – to reject it. Ellen White claims she saw Miller as one of the saints in the 2nd resurrection. So the fact that he was convinced of the truth on this point at one time and then turned from it – did not entirely eliminate his hope of eternal life in that specific case. God deals with cases as we know from the I.J doctrine. I am not claiming to peer into the soul and see the saved/lost state of each person in the discussion. However I believe that Romans 1 and Romans 10 objective facts are clear in regard to the work that God does in convicting people of certain basic facts. How they deal with it – and the extent to which they can get by with it – is up to God to judge not me.

However – my argument on this point has been less about the biology and religion professors at LSU that claim to be sincerely duped by evolutionism – and more about the claims of Administrators – the paid watchmen – who to this very day claim they believe in Bible creation in a literal 7 days – and yet they enabled and “grew” the fiasco to what it is today.

in Christ,


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.

in Christ,


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 EGW’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).

in Christ,


Ravi Zacharias: Should Church Members be Held to a Higher Standard?

BobRyan said
There is no indication at all from John 1 “He is the light that coming into the world – enlightens every man” or John 16 “he convicts the World of sin and righteousness and judgement” really means “new Covenant Gospel transformation with Law written on the Heart”.

The Royal Law of Love is written on the hearts of all mankind – even on the hearts of those who do not listen to or live by this internal conviction of truth regarding how one should treat one’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.

in Christ,


Recent Comments by BobRyan

Academic Freedom Strikes Again!

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.

Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
@Sean Pitman:

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”.

Academic Freedom Strikes Again!


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.

Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions

Ervin Taylor:
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.

Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions

Ervin Taylor:
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