Comment on SDA Darwinians compromise key church doctrines by krissmith777.
Been a while since I commented, but that was because it was thought that this site ran it’s course. Well, now giving my two cents:
Adventists who want the church to compromise with Darwinism typically minimize the implications of their beliefs for the Church. But any compromise with Darwinism would strip the Seventh-day Adventist Church of its signature doctrine, the key to its prophetic interpretation, and its founding prophet.
Accepting Evolution has no essential implications of Christianity by itself. The most it can do is have implications for certain ideas about God and one of many interpretations of the Bible. I for one was raised in the Seventh-Day Adventist Church though I accept Evolution, but I am no less a believer in the Bible and no less a Theist than I have been before I accepted it.
The Biblical rationale for the Sabbath commandment—that God created the earth in six days and rested on the Sabbath day—could not be clearer. This rationale cannot be accommodated to Darwinism, which posits that life on earth evolved from a singled-celled organism over the course of hundreds of millions of years. Darwinism vitiates the biblical rationale for the Sabbath.
Young Earth Creationists agree with this, but Old Earth Creationists would argue that even if the Creation Days were not “Literal” 24 hour periods, the seven day week in the Jewish calender itself could be a mini-time frame representing a larger time frame; in which case, the Sabbath Doctrine can remain intact.
Also, there is no universal consensus in the Hebrew Linguistic community of the meaning of “Day” in Genesis chapter one. Rodney Whitefield, for example, has really interesting arguments as to why the Creation days are not literal as far as linguistics go. [1] On the other hand, Jeff A. Benner from the Ancient Hebrew Research Center says that Genesis Chapter 1 is written in Block Logic; that is to say that it is in reality comprised of six different stories not necessarily in chronological order, as opposed to “step logic” which would be chronological. He then concludes by saying:
It must be remembered that modern western thinkers view events in step logic. This is the idea that each event comes after the previous forming a series of events in a linear timeline. But, the Hebrews did not think in step logic but in block logic. This is the grouping together of similar ideas together and not in chronological order. Most people read Genesis chapter one from a step logic perspective or chronological, rather than from the block logic so prevalent in Hebrew poetry. [2]
Young Earth Creationists, however, like to cite a letter written by James Barr who they quote in support of their position, as he was a Hebrew Linguist who thought that was the meaning of Genesis, but they usually fail to point out that he also says in the same letter that the point of view had nothing to do with the linguistics at all, and that he didn’t think that most in the field would even bother getting into the discussion supporting one side over the other. [3]
In any “mistake†scenario, Ellen White’s prophetic authority is gravely impeached. To say that Ellen White was mistaken on this issue is tantamount to saying that the Adventist Church never really had a prophet.
If the Seventh-Day Adventist Church had no prophet, then so be it. Faith in God and acceptance of Jesus’ sacrifice is much more important. That, and that alone affects our salvation, not whether or not Ellen White had visions.
And there are my two cents. Feel free to agree or disagree.
_________________
[1]Whitefield, Rodney. Genesis One and the Age of the Earth: What Does the Bible Say? Available online at: http://www.creationingenesis.com/Genesis_One_and_the_Age_of_the_Earth.pdf[2] Benner, Jeff A. “The Poetry of Genesis 1.” Ancient Hebrew Research Center. Online at: http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/23_genesis_1.html
[3] James Barr letter (23 April 1984) available at: http://members.iinet.com.au/~sejones/barrlett.html
Table of Contents
krissmith777 Also Commented
SDA Darwinians compromise key church doctrines
@David Read:No one says that the builders can “create with the word.” — God cannot be compared to builders.
Did God need a “power generator” to see what he was doing while he was creating the earth and the creatures in it before the forth day?– I would venture to say “no.”
Implying that God would probably need a power generator WOULD still work to demean…since it would set limitations on his creative ability.
Does God have limitations to his creative ability? No. Do human builders? Yes.
As I was reading this reply, I remembered one mocking comment that a skeptic of Genesis said. He said:
And God saw the light was good, because now he could see what he was doing.
Now I can see this with human builders… But I stand by my statement that it demeans God.
SDA Darwinians compromise key church doctrines
@Ken:Let’s say we were in a room together and you were all teaching me the correct interpretation of Genesis. Let’s say each of your as teachers had a different, albeit slight, interpretation. Would it be wrong of me as a novice to ask if there was an empirical methodology to resolve the issue. Isn’t this what science does without the bias of faith or non faith?
It wouldn’t be wrong of you at all. In fact, I would encourage it.
SDA Darwinians compromise key church doctrines
@BobRyan:I didn’t say that that Revelation 21 said that the earth had no light; just that it cannot work with the first three Creation days having both “morning and evening” because Rev 21:25 clearly says that in God’s glory there is NO night, and therefore no evening.
