Comment on SDA Darwinians compromise key church doctrines by Sean Pitman.
So here is the crux of the problem: if we insist that we must use our God-given brains to decide whether God’s word is trustworthy (Sean Pitman’s position), how do we select WHICH claims of the Bible must be supported for it to be believed? Obviously, some claims can be supported, and others cannot (which also happens to be true of the Book of Mormon and other supposedly inspired books). Do we accept the Bible because of the claims that can be supported, or do we reject it because of the claims that cannot be supported?
I accept the Bible as having a Divine origin because of the weight of evidence regarding those claims that can actually be tested and evaluated. Those things that can be tested have proven themselves to be true. It is this weight of evidence that allows one to also trust those metaphysical claims of the Bible that cannot be directly tested.
This is the reason why the Bible stands out as superior to other claimed sources of Divine authority. You mention the Book of Mormon. Why do you accept the Bible over the Book of Mormon? Well, for me, I see the Bible as superior because the testable elements within both books strongly favor Bible as being far more reliable and trustworthy.
If you are honest with yourself, you do the very same thing.
Although Ken has not articulated the concern posed in this latter question, I believe it creates an enormous dilemma for those who reject the historical-grammatical approach and insist the Bible must be subject to external validition (the historical-critical hermeneutic). In relying on science, human reason, and falsifiable evidence (Sean Pitman’s clearly articulated position), the decision to accept or reject the claims of Scripture becomes an inescapably arbitary and capricious exercise. It also destroys Sola Scriptura.
What is arbitrary is your acceptance of the Bible without any appeal to rational thought or empirical evidence of any kind. You simply assert that one should pick the Bible as Divinely inspired based on an arbitrary choice, the luck of the draw so the speak, among the many competing options available.
One cannot get much more arbitrary and capricious than this. It is far more rational and non-arbitrary to defend one’s conclusion that the Bible (or particular interpretations of the Bible) is in fact trustworthy as the Word of God based on the overall weight of empirical evidence that appeals to the candid intelligent mind.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman Also Commented
SDA Darwinians compromise key church doctrines
@Professor Kent:
Totally agreed…even though they reject a literal 6-day creation 6,000 years ago. Fancy that.
Fancy that. Knowledge, by itself, doesn’t save. The motive of selfless love is what saves. Yet, knowledge has the power to provide one with a solid hope of bright future in this life, making this life more tolerable and giving us a closer and more intimate walk with God here and now. It also has the power to quicken the conscience and in this way has an indirect role in contributing to our salvation.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
SDA Darwinians compromise key church doctrines
@Professor Kent:
I ask, yet again, what do you do with the evaluation of the former Education Director for the Adventist World Church, Humberto Rasi, of Dr. Davidon’s paper?
“This paper [by Dr. Davidson] does not deal with the issue of epistemology (i.e., how we come to believe, and in particular, how we come to accept the authority of Scripture); in the pages that follow we assume the acceptance of the Bible as the Word of God. Within this presupposition of faith, the question that occupies our attention is the issue of biblical hermeutics, i.e., how to properly interpret the textâ€.
http://www.andrews.edu/~davidson/Publications/Hermeneutics,%20Biblical/Bible%20&%20Hermeneutics.pdf
Further repetitions of your very same argument without even addressing the counters presented to you will not be posted in this forum…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
SDA Darwinians compromise key church doctrines
@Professor Kent:
There are many different voices claiming to be “God’s” voice. Picking out the true voice of God must be based on understood empirical evidence if it is to be rationally convincing to the intelligent candid mind.
This is why only God can tell if one has honestly considered the evidence that was made available to him/her – to include those who take on the “atheist” position. Salvation isn’t based on a correct understanding of the empirical evidence, but on a love of or a desire to have a correct understanding.
Because of this, I dare say that it is quite likely that more than a few “atheists” will find themselves in Heaven someday…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
After the Flood
Thank you Ariel. Hope you are doing well these days. Miss seeing you down at Loma Linda. Hope you had a Great Thanksgiving!
The Flood
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…
The Flood
Only someone who knows the future can make such decisions without being a monster…
Pacific Union College Encouraging Homosexual Marriage?
Where did I “gloss over it”?
Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
I fail to see where you have convincingly supported your claim that the GC leadership contributed to the harm of anyone’s personal religious liberties? – given that the GC leadership does not and could not override personal religious liberties in this country, nor substantively change the outcome of those who lost their jobs over various vaccine mandates. That’s just not how it works here in this country. Religious liberties are personally derived. Again, they simply are not based on a corporate or church position, but rely solely upon individual convictions – regardless of what the church may or may not say or do.
Yet, you say, “Who cares if it is written into law”? You should care. Everyone should care. It’s a very important law in this country. The idea that the organized church could have changed vaccine mandates simply isn’t true – particularly given the nature of certain types of jobs dealing with the most vulnerable in society (such as health care workers for example).
Beyond this, the GC Leadership did, in fact, write in support of personal religious convictions on this topic – and there are GC lawyers who have and continue to write personal letters in support of personal religious convictions (even if these personal convictions are at odds with the position of the church on a given topic). Just because the GC leadership also supports the advances of modern medicine doesn’t mean that the GC leadership cannot support individual convictions at the same time. Both are possible. This is not an inconsistency.
