Comment on Ravi Zacharias: Should Church Members be Held to a Higher Standard? by Faith.
Sorry, Sean, I still think you are wrong on this. We are indeed judged on our relationship with God and not just by the way we treat our fellowmen. There are two sections of the law and we will be judged on both. And that is according to the words of Jesus Himself.
When asked what the Great Commandment was, Jesus replied, â€œThou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment.â€ Then He adds, â€œAnd the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.â€ Matt 22:37-39
Notice, Sean, that the first obligation is to love the Lord. How, then, could it be possible that God would save his avowed enemies (which is what agnostics and atheists are) to live with Him in eternity? Not going to happen. Ellen White says that sometimes God uses the heathen to aid (or punish) His people. That doesnâ€™t make them suddenly saved. They are still heathen.
I am sorry Sean, but I think your theory borders on humanism and I believe you are incorrect in this. Though I do agree with you that people will be judged on the knowledge they have.
And, just for the record, I do understand the difference between judging what people do (something we can do by a knowledge of the law) in contrast to judging their fitness for everlasting life (which is Godâ€™s prerogative only.) I just think you are wrong in your belief that breaking the law is not an issue of morality. It most certainly appears that way to me.
Faith Also Commented
Ravi Zacharias: Should Church Members be Held to a Higher Standard?
Bravo! I agree with you, Mr. Zacharias.
Your arguments regarding Wallenberg and Schindler are very interesting. According to your theory we can not judge our fellowman. You appear to be judging these men into heaven even though you say they made no profession of belief in God. That smacks of the theory that we can, by our works gain heaven.
I disagree with you regarding the judgment in heaven. We will not be solely judged on how we treated our fellowman. The Ten Commandments are split in two sectionsâ€”love to God and love to man. It is on both these sections of the law that we will be judged.
It is a paradox that a good man can do evil things and an evil man can do good things. The actions of these two gentlemen in their saving of the Jews were goodâ€¦but they do not override the requirement to believe in God. Consider this: how would an agnostic or atheist get along in heaven? Do you think they would be there trying to convince the saints that there is no God? That would be like allowing sin to rise again for the second time, donâ€™t you think? Just because someone does something wonderful does not fit them for heaven. God has often used the heathen to work for His peopleâ€¦that doesnâ€™t make them any less heathen.
And by the way, I am not sure what criteria you use to define the Royal Law of Love that you keep talking about, but some of the statements I have read here come awfully close to the same song and dance that Satan used in heaven. He said that the angels needed no law as they instinctively knew what was right and wrong. Apparently God disagrees. Not even angels could do without the lawâ€”how much less can humans do without it?
One of the foundation principles of humanism is that we cannot judge in any way, shape, or form. That is not true and is one of the things that Satan employs to make us lose our horror of sin. Be careful, Sean, as I believe you are treading on dangerous ground with this. No, we cannot judge the hearts of peopleâ€”that is Godâ€™s job–but definitely. However, as these professors have come out in open rebellion against God, the Bible, the church, etc., we can know them by their fruits. This is open rebellion just as much as the rebellion that took place while Moses was up in the mountain obtaining the law.
You cannot have this thing both ways, Sean. You, as well as the rest of us, have already judged these people as having stolen from God by teaching heresy in their classrooms. And we are correct in this. You cannot now turn around and say that, oh shucks, we canâ€™t judge them because we do not know their hearts and they may indeed be sincerely deceived. When they opened their minds to the error of evolution in direct opposition to the Holy Word of God, they allowed themselves to be deceived. They have been given intellect and knowledge of the truth. This information gives them ample evidence to judge right from wrong. They have chosen to believe a man-made lie over the inspired writings of the Lord. Can this be judged wrong? Of course it can. It is clear as day. And worse, they have been acting as the devilâ€™s agents in steering the young people in their classrooms away from the truth. That is heinous in my eyes and I have no doubt at all in Godâ€™s eyes as well. They have acted as unfaithful stewards of the talents given them by the Lord.
Where I draw the line, is judging these people as condemned for all time. It is my hope and prayer that they will all come to a realization of where they have gone and retrace their steps back to the Lord in time to save themselves. Unfortunately, some of them and some they have led astray may not ever do that. I leave that between the Lord and themselves.
In the meantime, Sean, donâ€™t faint at calling sin by its right name. For this is definitely sin and they are at the present time guilty of it. What may happen in the future is totally up to them.
Recent Comments by Faith
Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
And you are correct, Sean, PK must consider where his influence is going–for God or against Him.
After reading your comment above, I must say PK isn’t the only one in that boat.I would make some comment as to how I really feel about you, but I know Sean will only delete it and you won’t benefit from my insight anyway–seeing as Sean is more concerned about other people’s feelings than you seem to be.
How you have the nerve to come to this website and call us all a bunch of morons (which is really what you are doing) is beyond me. You and your cronies are the ones drowning in error. Anyone who dares to accept man’s opinions over the Bible or SOP isn’t to be trusted to define truth for anyone.
Too straight-forward in my comment? Trust me, I have restrained myself admirably. If you only knew….
Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit
Further to my comment on skeptism and our professors, I’ve got to tell you that I found Prof Kent to be extremely annoying in his comments on EGW. He seems to think that she is an embarrassment to the church when she speaks on Science.
Personally I find people who dis her to be the embarrassment to the church. I really don’t see how they dare to contradict and mock God’s prophet. By doing this they undermine a lot of our church’s beliefs to outsiders as well as church members. God will hold them accountable for that.
Furthermore, David’s unpublished manuscript plus other books I have read on archaeology have reported skeletons of the type that EGW mentions. Also found were artifacts such as huge iron bedsteads made for and buried with kings of huge stature.
Just because you haven’t done your research, PK, don’t jump to the conclusion the evidence isn’t there. It’s there, all right, and you make yourself look a little foolish for not knowing about it.
Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit
David Read said:
“Ellen White’s statements about larger antediluvian life forms are well attested with regard to many different types of flora and fauna. They’re not even controversial…
As you know, I took advantage of your kind offer and I read your manuscript as well as I purchased 3 of your books, one for me, one for my sisters, and one for the church library. It took me a week to finish the book, and I and my sisters are very impressed with it. My one sister calls it “one incredible book”. It has answered a lot of the questions we had on the subject of evolution vs creation science, and, yes, I believe we (you and I and my sisters) are on the same page in our beliefs. We have immensely enjoyed discussing the various aspects of the subject as we read. It makes perfect sense to us.
I still have a couple of questions–new ones will probably always keep popping up–but I would say you have covered the subject admirably. Thanks so much for this book.
I agree with Elder Wilson, this is something every Adventist should read. In my opinion it should be used as required reading for science courses. It is exactly the way I would want science courses in the universities to treat the Creation/evolution debate in the classroom. And if the professors at LSU and the other SDA institutions would do this we wouldn’t be constantly losing our young people and, for that matter, our professors, to skeptisism.
Thank God someone has the courage to publish the truth and expose error.
God Bless you, David.
Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit
Hi Sean and Bill,
I am wondering if the difference of opinion here is due to varying definitions of the word ‘science’. As we all know there is true science and there is worldly psuedo-science.
If Bill’s understanding of ‘science’ in this case is actually worldly psuedo-science, then he is correct in not wanting any truth to be compromised with it.
From Sean’s post, I believe he is referring to true science, which is definitely part of our beliefs on origins and is well supported by the Bible and SOP, as Sean admirably demonstrated.
Not having seen the exhibit myself, I cannot comment on whether or not they are mixing psuedo-science into it. (Perhaps a few of you posters out there can see the exhibit and report back to us.) Knowing the general philosophy of SAU, I would be surprised if they did.
Their goal is “to provide scientific evidence that substantiates the Bible’s account of creation.” Sounds good to me.
They also say: “Religion and science don’t need to be at odds.” And that is true when you are referring to true science, which I believe they are.
However, I do understand Bill’s reaction in that these days when people use the word ‘science’ without qualification it so often means evolutionary pseudoscience, that we tend to be suspicious.
I think, Bill, that in this case we don’t need to worry. I believe SAU’s heart is in the right place and I am so glad that at least one of our institutions is willing to stand up and be counted on the side of Creation, even though they will probably draw much criticism from the ‘scientific’ community as well as from the TEs in their own church.
God bless them for their fidelity to Him. And may God strengthen them to meet the onslaught that is most likely to follow, is my prayer for them.