@Professor Kent: You wrote: Historical-Biblical Method Definition: The attempt to understand …

Comment on SDA Darwinians compromise key church doctrines by Sean Pitman.

@Professor Kent:

You wrote:

Historical-Biblical Method Definition: The attempt to understand the meaning of biblical data by means of methodological considerations arising from Scripture alone.

This very same method can be used to understand the intended meaning of the Book of Mormon or the Qur’an. You don’t seem to grasp the concept that a method used to understand meaning is not the same thing as a method used to understand the validity or credibility of what the text is actually saying…

As Jesus himself pointed out, the testimony of a witness about himself is not valid (John 5:31 NIV). Validating the testimony of anyone or anything requires outside references.

Please also refer to the following comment listed below (Link).

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 text”.

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.