Comment on Adventist Review: Pastors Who Don’t Believe by Sean Pitman.
Sean, If an SDA pastor was having an extramarital affair with the church secretary, and the Church decided to remove him, it would not be because they disagreed on what the “doctrinal†basis of “adultery†was. They would be making a moral judgment based on what God’s Word says.
That is because adultery is a breaking of the Royal Law of Love (the taking of something that one knows isn’t theirs to take – i.e., stealing). It is a clear moral wrong in anyone’s book to treat someone else in a way in which you yourself would not like to be treated (i.e., the Golden Rule is intuitively known by all as a gift of God).
This is the same thing, basically, that Adam and Eve did. They stole something that they consciously knew wasn’t theirs and therefore became morally accountable to God. They treated God contrary to how they would have wished to be treated. They deliberately broke the Golden Rule and therefore the Royal Law.
This isn’t the same thing as honestly disagreeing over the 6-day creation week or the state of the dead or any other point of doctrine that is not intuitively knowable. A person who honestly believes that life evolved over hundreds of millions of years on this planet is not knowingly stealing from anyone and therefore cannot be charged with a moral deficiency. However, a person who knowingly teaches contrary to what their employer is paying them to teach, is stealing and is therefore morally accountable before God.
Again, errors in doctrine on such non-intuitive issues, issues that are not directly related to breaking the Royal Law, cannot be judged on a moral basis by us humans. The reason for this is, yet again, because it is possible for one to honestly and sincerely hold such doctrinal errors.
Only God knows for sure what is and is not really known and understood, and the true motives of a person, regarding such issues…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman Also Commented
Adventist Review: Pastors Who Don’t Believe
In any case, any further comments concerning the morality or lack thereof of those involved with the LSU situation will no longer be posted here on Educate Truth. However, You are free to send me a personal E-mail if you wish (my E-mail can be obtained by visiting my website listed below).
Sincerely,
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Adventist Review: Pastors Who Don’t Believe
@Ron Stone M.D.:
Well, Sean, atheists have written books explaining what, why, and how they have rejected God’s Truth. Those at LSU have explained what they believe and why they have accepted Man’s word and rejected God’s Truth. You say we can never know anything about this, and they must not really “understand†what they are doing.
I don’t know if they do or do not really understand what they are doing; and neither do you. Only God knows for sure…
Not only would I and others here disagree with you, but I believe the atheists would disagree. The idea that church members cannot be “judged†by their words and actions is simply not biblical.
And the soldiers who nailed Jesus to the cross would have claimed at the time that they knew exactly what they were doing too… but did they really? Jesus prayed for them saying, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” – Luke 23:34 NIV
It is quite possible that even if a person is very adamant that he/she knows exactly what he/she is doing, that this person may not really know. This is a possibility that only God knows for sure. You simply cannot make this particular type of moral judgment with complete accuracy. You and I can judge the rightness or wrongness of the word or act (specifically regarding a doctrine like the literal 6-day creation week), but we cannot judge the rightness or wrongness of the heart; the motive.
There is a difference between being mistaken and sinning. Sinning requires a deliberate rebellion against known truth – something that you cannot tell for sure in cases of doctrinal disagreements on such things as the literal creation week or the true origin of the Sabbath or any other such commandment that deals specifically with man’s relationship with his or her God and God alone.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Adventist Review: Pastors Who Don’t Believe
@Ron Stone M.D.:
Sean says Moses and the Prophets are “empirical†evidence then says they are not!
Moses and the prophets are only “empirical evidence” in support of the Bible’s credibility if they actually say something true regarding the real world in which we all live (which I think they clearly do).
However, if Moses and the prophets did in fact clearly contradicted the real world (i.e., real history), the hypothesis that the Bible’s credibility is supported by them would be effectively falsified (as is the case for the Book of Mormon, for example) in such a situation.
It is in this sense that things like biblical prophecy must be held up for testing before biblical prophecy can be rationally accepted as credible (at least any more credible than the Book of Mormon).
In other words, biblical credibility is dependent upon the empirical evidence. Without the empirical evidence, there would simply be no greater rational reason to believe the Bible as any more credible than some moral fable that someone simply made up as a “cleverly invented story”. – 2 Peter 1:16 NIV
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.
