Comment on A big reason why so many people are leaving the church by Sean Pitman.
Phil Brantley wrote:
“You argue that the Bible is indistinguishable from a well-written novel if its “empirical claims” are not validated by external data. (I thank you for tacitly conceding the point that there is no external data that evidences the virgin birth). But rather than believe the virgin birth based on evidence arising out of Scripture and on faith, you now suggest, ‘The metaphysical claims of the Bible or those claims that cannot be directly tested or evaluated, can be trusted based on the reliability of the Bible regarding those empirical claims of the Bible that can actually be tested and evaluated.'”
Exactly. If all the information in the Bible could be known by other means, the Bible, as with any other witness in a court of law, would not be needed.
“Historical novels contain a lot of historical data that can be verified by external data. But no one imagines that the fictional material is true and accurate merely because the historical data has been verified. Similarly, no rationalist will feel compelled to believe the Bible’s metaphysical claims merely because some empirical claims have been verified by external data. The rationalist may develop high respect for the literary and historical quality of the Bible. But for the rationalist, this exercise only suggests that the Bible is an interesting historical novel.
Indeed. But what is interesting about the Bible is that the Bible not only demonstrates its credibility with regard to the accuracy of its historical claims, it demonstrates that its predictions of those real historical events, actually happened as predicted in history. This is the power of Biblical prophecy to convert the intelligent candid mind regarding the Divine origin of the Book. The honest seeker for truth is able to compare historically known Biblical predictions before the fulfillment of those predictions in real history.
In short, real empirical evidence supports the reality of Biblical prophecy, the reality of Biblical foreknowledge of real historical events, and asks the reader to judge for him or herself to see if anyone other than a God could really know and predict the future in such a strikingly accurate manner as that presented in the pages of the Bible. Thus, empirical evidence that is external to the Bible rationally supports the credibility of the Bible’s claim to having a Divine, rather than just a human, origin.
And you wonder why evangelists and others trying to convert honest seekers for truth to a biblical understanding of the world dwell so long on Biblical prophecy?
“Again, external data is no substitute for faith.”
Let me ask you yet again, did the disciples of Jesus have more or less faith in Him, as the Son of God, before or after the empirical demonstration of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead?
You see, faith without any empirical basis is emotion-driven and blind to empirical reality. Such faith is not solid enough to support a strong hope in a bright literal future that can take us through difficult times and the very real risk of torture and death. It was the solid empirical evidence of the resurrection of Jesus, undeniable to the disciples who saw it with their own eyes, that gave them the strength to speak the gospel of Christ fearlessly and even with gladness and gratitude in the face of torture and death. Such is not the power of empirically-blind faith for those who are actually rational, intelligent and naturally timid and fearful of torture and death.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman Also Commented
A big reason why so many people are leaving the church
@Professor Kent:
Rejection of the Seventh-day Sabbath because of a rejection of the clear reading of the Genesis account of origins is a rejection of the nature of inspiration of the Bible that Mrs. White (and the SDA Church) was trying to promote. Such a rejection completely changes the picture of God in one’s mind and the nature of the Bible as well as the Bible’s power to change one’s life and one’s world perspective. The Bible means something very different if it is viewed as a allegory vs. if it is viewed as literally true on those topics where the author(s) clearly intended to be taken as describing real historical events.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
A big reason why so many people are leaving the church
@Professor Kent:
There are many different ways to “believe in the Bible” that are completely opposed to the type of belief or faith that Mrs. White was trying to promote. Many believe that the Bible is a book of good moral instruction, but has nothing of any real value to say about the physical world. Many believe that the Bible is a collection of man’s best wisdom over the centuries, but is not actually the Word of God.
What Mrs. White was talking about is that a belief in mainstream evolutionary theories destroys a belief in the Bible as the clear Word of God on every topic it touches upon – to include the topic of origins. The evolutionary perspective undermines faith in the character of God that Ellen White understood and which the SDA Church is trying to promote. It undermines faith in the reasonableness and rationality of God – suggesting that God is willing to “command men to observe the week of seven literal days in commemoration of seven indefinite periods, which is unlike his dealings with mortals, and is an impeachment of his wisdom.”
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
A big reason why so many people are leaving the church
@Shane Hilde:
Exactly! Not even Abraham was asked to believe in the naked word of God devoid of empirical evidence that would appeal to the rational candid mind. God was not offended when Abraham asked for this evidence because without such evidence, Abraham would truly have been insane to simply follow voices in His head claiming to be the voice of God without any external empirical confirmation…
There are false spirits out there that will lie to us. These spirits must be tested. And, the only basis upon which to employ and interpret tests is our God-given human reasoning abilities.
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.
