10/31/11 Ron (October 30,2011) “Bill, I am happy for the church …

Comment on Back to Square One… by Lydian.

10/31/11

Ron (October 30,2011)

“Bill, I am happy for the church to state what they believe as well, but the minute the church starts to do what Educate Truth is advocating, demanding orthodoxy as a test of fellowship and employment, then you have crossed over the line. The church no longer believes the Bible and the Bible only, because it is usurping the role of the Holy Spirit to interpret the Bible to each individual, and to bring conviction.

Instead of allowing the Bible to be broadly interpreted as needed to meet peoples need, the creed limits the Bible to one narrow understanding which may not be where the Holy Spirit is going in some people’s lives. At the very least, the church is putting itself in the place of God by attempting to coerce thought and belief. Coercion is Satan’s tactic, not God’s.”

******************

Ron, I am somewhat “befuddled” by your response to Bill. For one thing, every organization I know of has its set of “rules and regulations” that every individual belonging to it is expected to abide by if they expect to remain a part of the organization. Why should a church be any different?

Besides, it wasn’t just a group of people getting together and “deciding” on their own what the church should or should not stand for and expect it’s followers to adhere to.
Much earnest Bible study and prayer by our early pioneers were used to determine what was–or was not–what GOD intended for His true followers to believe and practice. Where did you ever get the idea that God left it to the “Holy Spirit to interpret the Bible TO EACH INDIVIDUAL, and to bring conviction”

Perhaps I misunderstood it but that came across to me that the Holy Spirit might bring one person to believe in evolution and another to believe in Creation–but by a slow process rather than the “six days of evenings and mornings”in which He accomplished it all and rested on the seventh DAY.”.

The Holy Spirit ALWAYS leads sincere seekers after truth in the same direction–to the plain “thus saith the LORD”. And the Lord’s instructions are the same for everyone regardless of age, race, color or nationality. ALL which reach the kingdom of God are going to be united on every point of doctrine–the “doctrines” plainly given in the Bible–of which a literal six day creation followed by a Sabbath rest on the seventh DAY–marking off a one week, seven day.period of time. Incidentally, where do you think the 7 day period of time came from anyway? (As I understand it, several times there have been efforts to change it in some way or another but they have never succeed. Have you ever wondered why?)

Adventists are not yet perfect Ron and, unfortunately, do not always believe everything exactly the same. We are all fallen human beings but before Jesus comes ALL of His true followers will be united on the same platform of truth–the truth as given in the Bible. There is only one way to heaven and that is called the “straight and narrow” and, as I understand it, ALL will be believing the same interpretation of Scripture. (There will be some, as I understand it, who never had a chance to even see a Bible who “worshiped God” by a life of kindness and helpfulness to others who will also be there and will be charmed and happy when they get to meet and know the wonderful “Father” they never met before.

I must admit I have a hard time believing the church should allow people teaching something diametrically opposed to what we believe and stand for to continue teaching our youth or preaching in our churches. How long do you think Catholics would allow someone to preach the Sabbath in one of their schools?

Personally, I think God led these young men to do what they are doing. They–like the rest of us–aren’t perfect, but neither were the disciples or the other writers in the Bible. Unfortunately, fallen human beings are all that the Lord has to work with but He does use those who truly love Him and are devoted to doing what ever they can (sometimes not “perfectly”) in the situation they live in. (I’m amazed that they can do what they do and still find time for their work and families!)

Please forgive me if I misunderstood what you wrote. If I did, please rewrite it so 87 years old dummies like me can truly understand what you meant.

Thanks,

Lydian

Recent Comments by Lydian

A New Endowment Program for Adventist Education
So here I sit–a “very old lady”–totally confused and not having a clue as to whether to donate or not–or where to donate if I should.

As things stand now I think I will just continue putting my own little amount to my current “missionary out reach” of buying “Steps to Christ” and “Who Do You Think You Are?” and passing them on to the clerks in the stores where I shop or other people I meet that I think would like them.

If and when you folks decide on what, how and where to help in this very worthy project let me know and I’ll do what I can then.


A New Endowment Program for Adventist Education
I just noticed that there is such a program in place in northern California but I would want one that is nation wide. After all, if our kids aren’t already in danger here in the southern union also (as well the rest of the US) it’s most likely only a short matter of time till they will be.


A New Endowment Program for Adventist Education
I am far from a wealthy person who could and gladly would donate large sums of money to such a program but I could and would gladly donate some if such assurances were solidly in place. I’m sure there are many “old folks” like me “out there” who feel the same way. (Is there already such a program in place? If so please post all needed information.)


The God of the Gaps
While browsing my rather voluminous file of articles to “save” I ran across this jewel—I think it is worth saving and thinking about–especially the last statement by Darwin himself:
**************************
Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

While Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is a relatively young archetype, the evolutionary worldview itself is as old as antiquity. Ancient Greek philosophers such as Anaximander postulated the development of life from non-life and the evolutionary descent of man from animal. Charles Darwin simply brought something new to the old philosophy — a plausible mechanism called “natural selection.” Natural selection acts to preserve and accumulate minor advantageous genetic mutations. Suppose a member of a species developed a functional advantage (it grew wings and learned to fly). Its offspring would inherit that advantage and pass it on to their offspring. The inferior (disadvantaged) members of the same species would gradually die out, leaving only the superior (advantaged) members of the species. Natural selection is the preservation of a functional advantage that enables a species to compete better in the wild. Natural selection is the naturalistic equivalent to domestic breeding. Over the centuries, human breeders have produced dramatic changes in domestic animal populations by selecting individuals to breed. Breeders eliminate undesirable traits gradually over time. Similarly, natural selection eliminates inferior species gradually over time.
\
Darwin’s Theory of Evolution – Slowly But Surely…

Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is a slow gradual process. Darwin wrote, “…Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps.” [1] Thus, Darwin conceded that, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” [2] Such a complex organ would be known as an “irreducibly complex system”. An irreducibly complex system is one composed of multiple parts, all of which are necessary for the system to function. If even one part is missing, the entire system will fail to function. Every individual part is integral. [3] Thus, such a system could not have evolved slowly, piece by piece. The common mousetrap is an everyday non-biological example of irreducible complexity. It is composed of five basic parts: a catch (to hold the bait), a powerful spring, a thin rod called “the hammer,” a holding bar to secure the hammer in place, and a platform to mount the trap. If any one of these parts is missing, the mechanism will not work. Each individual part is integral. The mousetrap is irreducibly complex. [4]

Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we’ve made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist

Michael Denton wrote, “Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world.” [5]

And we don’t need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin’s day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” [6]

Footnotes:
1. Charles Darwin, “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life,” 1859, p. 162.
2. Ibid. p. 158.
3. Michael Behe, “Darwin’s Black Box,” 1996.
4. “Unlocking the Mystery of Life,” documentary by Illustra Media, 2002.
5. Michael Denton, “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis,” 1986, p. 250.
6. Charles Darwin, “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life,” 1859, p. 155.

****************
I don’t think Sean could have said it better himself!


Walla Walla University: The Collegian Debates Evolution vs. Creation
Sean, I guess I “bit off more than I can chew” when I subscribed to some of your other options.
All I can handle is the ^way it used to be”–like this column still is. Please put me back to this mode of information and I will be very happy. Thanks.