The Historical Grammatical Method vs. The Historical Critical Method
By Sean Pitman
Protestant Christians are famous for the mantra, “The Bible and the Bible only.†Yet, as Seventh-day Adventist protestants in particular, how do we know that this phrase is true? How do we know that the Bible is the only valid rule of faith whereby all else must be judged? It is one thing to be able to correctly interpret the claims of the biblical authors (i.e., the science of hermeneutics). It is another thing entirely to determine that what the authors are saying is actually true (the science of epistemology). Yet, there are many within our church, and other churches as well, who suggest that if the Bible is in fact the very Word of God, that it should be accepted without question, without any effort to test its claims against empirical reality to judge if it is or is not actually true.
For some, this seems to fall in line with a statement on Bible study published in 1986 by the Seventh-day Adventist Church, a portion of which reads as follows:
In recent decades the most prominent method in biblical studies has been known as the historical-critical method. Scholars who use this method, as classically formulated, op¬erate on the basis of presuppositions which, prior to studying the biblical text, reject the reliability of accounts of miracles and other supernatural events narrated in the Bible. Even a modified use of this method that retains the principle of criticism which subordinates the Bible to human reason is unacceptable to Adventists.
The historical-critical method minimizes the need for faith in God and obedience to His commandments. In addition, because such a method de-emphasizes the divine element in the Bible as an inspired book (including its resultant unity) and depreciates or misunderstands apocalyptic prophecy and the eschatological portions of the Bible, we urge Adventist Bible students to avoid relying on the use of the presuppositions and the resultant deductions associated with the historical-critical method.
In contrast with the historical-critical method and presuppositions, we believe it to be helpful to set forth the principles of Bible study that are consistent with the teachings of the Scriptures themselves, that preserve their unity, and are based upon the premise that the Bible is the Word of God. Such an approach will lead us into a satisfying and rewarding experience with God.
Presuppositions Arising From the Claims of Scripture
Authority
- The sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments are the clear, infallible revelation of God’s will and His salvation. The Bible is the Word of God, and it alone is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested (2Tim. 3:15, 17; Ps. 119:105; Prov. 30:5, 6; Isa. 8:20; John 17:17; 2Thess. 3:14; Heb. 4:12).
Scripture is an authentic, reliable record of history and God’s acts in history. It provides the normative theological interpretation of those acts. The supernatural acts revealed in Scripture are historically true. For example, chapters 1-11 of Genesis are a factual account of historical events.- The Bible is not like other books. It is an indivisible blend of the divine and the human. Its record of many details of secular history is integral to its overall purpose to convey salvation history. While at times there may be parallel procedures employed by Bible students to determine historical data, the usual techniques of historical research, based as they are on human presuppositions and focused on the human element, are inadequate for interpreting the Scriptures, which are a blend of the divine and human. Only a method that fully recognizes the indivisible nature of the Scriptures can avoid a distortion of its message.
- Human reason is subject to the Bible, not equal to or above it. Presuppositions regarding the Scriptures must be in harmony with the claims of the Scriptures and subject to correction by them (1Cor. 2:1-6). God intends that human reason be used to its fullest extent, but within the context and under the authority of His Word rather than independent of it.
- The revelation of God in all nature, when properly understood, is in harmony with the written Word, and is to be interpreted in the light of Scripture.
Bible Study: Presuppositions, Principles, and Methods
This statement was approved and voted by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists Executive Committee at the Annual Council Session in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, October 12, 1986
http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/other-documents/other-doc4.html
As already noted, this document seems to suggest, at least to some, that the claim of the Bible to be the Word of God by which everything else must be judged should be accepted at face value, a priori, without any effort to test the claims of the Bible against what seems to be empirical reality. For example, the truth of Biblical prophecies concerning historical events should not be dependent upon if those events were or were not actually fulfilled in real history. In other words, the Bible maintains credibility as the Word of God regardless of if any or all of its claims do or do not happen to match what appears to us to be empirical reality.
This argument is expanded by Phil Brantley, a lawyer who frequents various discussion blogs regarding issues within the Adventist church:
“Practitioners of the historical-grammatical hermeneutic do not object to documenting fulfillment of prophecy by reference to external data, because in so doing one is not necessarily putting Scripture to the test. This is because the prophecy is considered true and correct, irrespective of whether it has been fulfilled…
The authority of Scripture and its various authors is validated by numerous authorities within Scripture itself. [Some argue that] because Scripture is validated in this way, we can also put Scripture to the test by reference to extra-biblical empirical data.
Let me broaden my previous point. Not only science data (Gen. 3:17-18, Rom. 8: 20-21), but the counsel of other spirits (Is. 8:19; 1 John 4:1-3); tradition (Matt. 15: 3, 6); human philosophy (Col. 2:8); human knowledge (1 Tim. 6: 20), reason and emotions (Gen. 3: 1-6, Prov. 14:12), miracles and fantastical occurrences that we observe (Rev. 13:13, 16:13-14), the inspired writings of Ellen White (Matt. 7:15-23, 1 Thes. 5:20-21 and her own testimony), fulfillments of extra-biblical prophecies that we document and verify (Matt 7: 15-23), the voice of God as we perceive it (Is. 8:20), the counsel of the Holy Spirit as we perceive it (Is. 8:20), etc., all must be held subservient to the authority of the Word of God. We are not at liberty to put Scripture to the test by reference to any extra-biblical empirical data…
The sixteen evidentiary items that I list arise out of Scripture and are not dependent upon external data in such a way that such external data puts Scripture to the test…â€
http://www.old.spectrummagazine.org/blog/2011/04/26/open-letter-educate-truth
So, according to Brantley, the Bible is true irrespective of if its prophecies or any other statements regarding the empirical world are or are not fulfilled in reality. It is for this reason that Brantley and those who strongly agree with his perspective think that the promotion of the evolutionary views of mainstream scientists in our own schools, like La Sierra University, shouldn’t be a problem. After all, regardless of what the “science” says about origins, we can have faith that the Bible is correct since it is, by definition, the Word of God. The empirical evidence should not, therefore, have any real weight against anything that God had said – right?
My question is: How is this not the very definition of blind faith? How do we know, among many competing options, which voice really is the voice of God?
If the Bible happened to claim, in no uncertain terms, that the Earth was a flat disk, not a sphere, or that the Sun rotated around the Earth or that the American Indians were really descendants of the “lost tribes of Israel†(as the Book of Mormon claims), would we accept such claims as literally true just because the Bible said so? If the Bible said that what looks like a circle is really a square, would that change the circle into a square? – or would it remain a circle and change one’s rational view of Biblical credibility? Is not the credibility of the Bible regarding its metaphysical claims dependent upon the established credibility of those various claims regarding the empirical world that can actually be investigated and tested in a potentially falsifiable manner? Does not the Bible itself invite us to test its claims to see if they are or are not true? (Malachi 3:10, Psalms 34:8).
Consider, as another relevant example, the case of Jesus and his healing of the paralytic (Mark 2:1-10). The first thing Jesus said to the paralytic was, “Your sins are forgivenâ€. This statement angered the teachers of the law who were there because a claim to be able to forgive sins was equivalent to claiming to be God. So, Jesus responded by asking a question:
“Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up, take your mat and walk’? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins…†He said to the paralytic, “I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.â€
What would have happened to Jesus’ metaphysical claim to be able to forgive sins if his empirical claim to have the power to heal the paralyzed man had proved false? – if the man had just laid there paralyzed on his mat when Jesus gave the command to “get up and go home� You see, Jesus himself tied in the credibility of his metaphysical claims to his empirical demonstrations of Divine power. If the empirical demonstrations failed, so would the credibility of his metaphysical claims.
I propose that the same is true for the credibility of the Bible. The credibility of the metaphysical claims of the Bible that cannot be directed investigated or tested (such as the Virgin Birth, the raising of the dead, or the future life in Heaven to come) is based on the demonstrated credibility of those claims of the Bible that can be investigated and tested against known empirical reality (such as historical prophecies, the Noachian Flood, and the recent arrival of all life on this planet). If Biblical prophecies concerning empirical reality can be shown to be false, not in line with what really happened, then the credibility of the Bible’s metaphysical claims would suffer as well – for most rational people anyway. The same is true for other Biblical statements concerning empirical reality, such as the recent formation of all life on Earth and a truly worldwide Noachian Flood. If such claims can be clearly falsified, Biblical credibility suffers. It is for this reason that many of those who have become convinced that the Bible has made many such errors no longer view the Bible as anything more than a moral fable.
In order to effectively support the claim that the Bible is truly superior to all others claiming to be the “Word of God†(like the Book of Mormon, the Hindu Vedas, or the Qur’an), the Bible must present superior evidence to support this fantastic claim to truly useful privileged information that really did come from God Himself – if it is to be believed by most people, especially young people, with intelligent, rational, candid minds who are at least open to this possibility.
Consider the comments of the well-known Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias along these lines.
Ravi was asked:  What do you say to a pastor who says, “Apologetics is just philosophy, and we do not need that. All we need is the Bible�
I desperately wish it were that simple. When pastors believe and teach, “all we need is the Bible,†they equip their young people with the very line that gets them mocked in the universities and makes them unable and even terrified to relate to their friends. If pastors want their young people to do the work of evangelism — to reach their friends — that line will not get them anywhere. Even the Bible that Christ gave us is sustained by the miracle of the Resurrection.
The Resurrection gave the Early Church the argument that Christ is risen: We saw, we witnessed, we felt, and we touched. The apostle Paul defended this gospel. He went to Athens and planted a church there. In Ephesus he defended the faith in the school of Tyrannus. We also need to become all things to all people.
If a pastor says, “All we need is the Bible,†what does he say to a man who says, “All I need is the Quran� It is a solipsistic method of arguing.
The pastor is saying, “All I need is my own point of reference and nothing more than that.†Even the gospel was verified by external references. The Bible is a book of history, a book of geography, not just a book of spiritual assertions.
The fact is the resurrection from the dead was the ultimate proof that in history — and in empirically verifiable means — the Word of God was made certain. Otherwise, the experience on the Mount of Transfiguration would have been good enough. But the apostle Peter says in 2 Peter 1:19: “We have the Word of the prophets made more certain … as to a light shining in a dark place.†He testified to the authority and person of Christ, and the resurrected person of Christ.
To believe, “All we need is the Bible and nothing more,†is what the monks believed in medieval times, and they resorted to monasteries. We all know the end of that story. This argument may be good enough for those who are convinced the Bible is authority. The Bible, however, is not authoritative in culture or in a world of counter-perspectives. To say that it is authoritative in these situations is to deny both how the Bible defends itself and how our young people need to defend the Bible’s sufficiency.
It is sad that some people think a person who asks, “Why the Bible?†is being dishonest. This is a legitimate question.
http://www.rzim.org/USA/USFV/tabid/436/ArticleID/10206/CBModuleId/881/Default.aspx
@Professor Kent,
There is scientific evidence for the flood, although not for Christs’ Resurrection, or His resurrection of Lazarus, etc. The remains of fossilized fish have been found buried at the tops of the highest mountains on earth–which by far precludes fairly recent climbing expeditions eating the fish, and burying the remains which would leave no time for fossilization. Please see Dr. Vieth’s Lecture # 102, http://amazingdiscoveries.tv/c/9/Science/ And I quote from the site:
“Science today denies a universal flood, as it would destroy the continuity of the fossil record in the geological column. In this video, evidence for precisely such a universal phenomenon is presented with fascinating video material from modern day catastrophes on a smaller scale.”
Moreover, we need not make Bible study so convoluted by presenting this or that theory which has no bearing on truth, or that just muddies the waters on how we are to understand the Bible. God has granted to each person a measure of faith, and we know that without faith it is impossible to please Him. How do we increase our faith? It is not wholly by considering the scientific evidence or the lack thereof:
Rom 10:17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
So it is by diligent Bible study that our faith increases. We come to God humbly asking Him for understanding–after all, He gave the Word. It is that longing after righteousness and the doing of His will that reveals truth to us:
John 7:17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.
By and large, a secular/scientific education even at some Adventist colleges tends to undermine true faith in the Bible. I know from my own experience as a junior now at the University of Nevada, Reno–that if my own Bible knowledge and faith had not been so strong, then academia would have naturally destroyed what little faith I might have had under different circumstances. Many times I have questioned my present course as to its wisdom (Social Work) but its far to late to turn back. Every semester I deal with un-Biblical teachings in my classes. I’ve seen how Satan has moved on faculty and admn. who know not Jesus to attack me in different ways assaulting my character.
That aside, how can we presume to teach anyone how to understand the Bible without presenting a single Bible/EGW text as support in a comprehensive manner? Is this a denial of the Master? I believe so.
Mat_10:33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
We don’t need to guess–we don’t need to present speculations and theories, Christ tells us in John 7:17 (and elsewhere) precisely how we are to understand His Word.
God gives light to guide those who honestly desire light and truth; but it is not His purpose to remove all cause for questioning and doubt. He gives sufficient evidence to found faith upon, and then requires men to accept that evidence and exercise faith. {5T 303.1}
He who will study the Bible with a humble and teachable spirit will find it a sure guide, pointing out the way of life with unfailing accuracy. But what does your study of the Bible avail, brethren and sisters, unless you practice the truths it teaches? That holy book contains nothing that is nonessential; nothing is revealed that has not a bearing upon our actual lives. The deeper our love for Jesus, the more highly we shall regard that word as the voice of God directly to us. {5T 303.2}
Steve Billiter(Quote)
View CommentI posted a comment to John Alfke on the Spectrum forum and this is how the editors responded……
“BP is a person named Bill Sorensen, who has been banned in the past from this website. Consequently his posts will be deleted. If he continues to post we will again block his IP address. – website editor”
Actually, I don’t really care because they ban me. What I do care about is the fact the SDA denomination that I am a member of supports this forum and allows these spiritual mutates to have a booth at the GC sessions.
I have complained in the past, and if they don’t do something about it, I will. I am tired of financially supporting a church that allows such evil as the Spectrum ministry to influence church members on an offical basis at official church functions.
What they don’t oppose, they condon. So they are supporting error and apostacy in the church. Leaders must be held accountable for what they allow that opposes God’s work and God’s kingdom.
I hope others will likewise at least protest this breach of faith. And I would remind them, even if they think they can get by with it in this world, God will surely judge their duplicity and the outcome will be something they will regret and rue for eternity.
Bill Sorensen
Bill Sorensen(Quote)
View CommentWhat do you have in mind?
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentBill Sorensen: I have complained in the past, and if they don’t do something about it, I will.
Professor Kent. I guess I will have to consider the many options available to finance God’s cause.
I know many people already do. There is 3ABN, Amazing Facts, Amazing Discoveries and there is always overseas ministries that need financial help.
I know my influence is small, if any at all on the church level. I suspect some at least consider me a liability and not an asset anyway. They apparently feel that way about many if not most church members.
We all have to answer to God for how we deal with our finances. But people are often convinced they have no obligation to consider any option except give their money to the church if and when they are members. So they abandon their responsibility to “the church”.
I know patience is a virtue and we should be slow to make radical decisions. But when our church condons A-today and Spectrum by allowing them an influence in the General conference meetings it seems way above and beyond tolerance and academic freedom.
These ministries are totally anti-Adventism. And they have been for years. If we believe we have a last day message, and people oppose it, why are they allowed this influence to corrupt and destroy faith in the final message?
What a time to be living! Confusion on every hand. And the church God raised up seems to be more confused than the world.
I attribute largely to the fact we have novices who know little but have considerable influence and authority in church leadership and administration.
What do you think?
Bill Sorensen
Bill Sorensen(Quote)
View Comment@Professor Kent:
Professor Kent September 11, 2011 at 5:32 pm
“I think the Desire of Ages, Steps to Christ, or Sermon on the Mount are all better choices than the Great Controversy for effective witnessing in today’s climate. Why would this make me a non-SDA? …
Why is it you get to decide that a “true SDA” believes there is only one really effective marketing tool for the Church: mass mailing the Great Controversy?
If you really want to go for something dramatic, Bill, why not invest in Great Controversy billboards all across the continent that proclaims the Pope to be anti-Christ. Make it a dramatic, apocalyptic scene.
Put a phone number on it where people can order their copy. And be sure to put Seventh-day Adventist on it so that we can get lots of people so angry at us that we no longer have an opportunity to witness when people ask us, one on one, what SDAs believe.”
*********
The Great Controversy book emphasizes the persecuting power of Rome. My question is: Who does Rome persecute today? What Rome did centuries ago might be relevant for what might take place in the future, but is this the best way to evangelize our Catholic brethren?
Did Paul use such a strategy in his work? Didn’t he start by commending the people of Athens for worshiping the Unknown God?
Is blaming Rome for its past sins the best way to share Christ with them? Did Jesus use such a method? Why not start by giving Rome credit for some of the good work the Popes have been doing?
Nic Samojluk(Quote)
View CommentI would like to make another relevant comment to the ongoing present situation in modern Adventism.
I don’t think people generally have a clue of the intensity of the issue confronting the church and the world in this Great Controvery war between Christ and Satan.
Satan has managed to “dumb down” and even trivialize the issues by way of the false gospel being advocated by many.
“I’m OK, you’re OK” has become the focus in the world and in Christanity in general. And, sad to say, even in Adventism. The movement God raised up to intensify the issues by way of the final judgment prior to the close of probation should put us all on edge in a spiritual sense.
A false gospel of a non-biblical security has replaced the genuine article. All true believers have adequate assurance based on the biblical norm. Today, what we hear has a closer affinity to “once saved, always saved” than bible assurance coupled with fear.
The human mind is easily deceived based on the fact we all desire some positive assurance of salvation. But when assurance is pressed beyond the biblical norm, the law is “dumb down” to a point that it has no dynamic function to motivate to obedience. “Fear God and give glory to Him” has been replaced with “love God and do as you please.”
This happens when the human factor in salvation is played down or eliminated completely. “Faith alone” has been wrested far from its Reformation heritage, meaning, and application. It now carries an apostate Protestant interpretation and application.
God will surely again intensify the truth connected with the law and the human family and the church will be brought to a final confrontation with God’s rule and kingdom vs. Satan’s. Today, many can not tell the difference. And they won’t accept the truth when presented because they have pre-determined that any dynamic presentation of the law is legalism. Once this mind set is locked in, the Holy Spirit has no avenue to convince them otherwise except the bible. And when the bible is rejected, there is only one final end, the unpardonable sin.
We could wish more people in the SDA church felt the intensity necessary to create the atmosphere by way of the bible that would awaken those who are asleep to fear for their own safety and outcome in spiritual matters. Sad to say, according to prophecy, many will not, and never will.
And some will truly wake up when it is too late for “The summer is ended, the harvest is past, and we are not saved.”
Bill Sorensen
Bill Sorensen(Quote)
View CommentI said “amen” because the Catholic priest called out a former SDA for making decisions on which texts–cannonized and non-canonized–he accepted. In essence, the guy was making a Church of his own design.
I think the Desire of Ages, Steps to Christ, or Sermon on the Mount are all better choices than the Great Controversy for effective witnessing in today’s climate. Why would this make me a non-SDA? I suspect the writings of George Vandeman, Mark Finley, and others are written in a more appealing and effective tone for modern readers. (And then, too, we have books by Sean Pitman and David Read that sell the single most important and vital doctrine of all–FB #6.) If we’re going to spend millions of dollars, why not first invest some money to figure out which strategy is most effective? Why is it you get to decide that a “true SDA” believes there is only one really effective marketing tool for the Church: mass mailing the Great Controversy?
If you really want to go for something dramatic, Bill, why not invest in Great Controversy billboards all across the continent that proclaims the Pope to be anti-Christ. Make it a dramatic, apocolyptic scene. Put a phone number on it where people can order their copy. And be sure to put Seventh-day Adventist on it so that we can get lots of people so angry at us that we no longer have an opportunity to witness when people ask us, one on one, what SDAs believe.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentProfessor Kent, are you a SDA? I’ve seen you “amen” the Catholic priest on Spectrum. And now you doubt the validity of spreading the GC by way of the mail.
As for how we consider our moral obligation in the context of giving, we must consider the condition of the church in EGW’s day and our own.
The church was in a positive growth stage in both doctrine and membership. Any loyal SDA could see the wisdom of supporting the denomination as a whole. And I don’t suggest even today that anyone lightly choose to do otherwise.
If EGW was alive today, she no doubt would have a totally different view of the spirituality of the church. If it was in a growing stage of development in her day, it certainly is not today.
We “worship, we know not what” in more than a few declarations of faith in what the church supports and how it defines our message and mission.
Thus, we have more than a few independent ministries who are aware of this reality and thus have their own ideas of how we can “finish the work”. They disagree on several issues the church supports.
I have no objection to someone who feels comfortable in paying their tithe to the organized denomination. Especially if they have carefully considered all their options and choose to do what they do.
Neither would I condemn anyone who felt otherwise if they have also carefully considered all the implications of their decision. We also know the EGW took tithe money and used it without feeling the need to send it through regular channels.
And you asked Holly concerning the Spectrum ministry…..”My question for you: what specific prophecy has the discussion at Spectrum fulfilled?”
If you don’t recognize the Spectrum ministry as a blatant anti-SDA ministry I could only wonder what you think the SDA ministry and mission should be?
Surely you are aware if you have read very much of the EGW materials that she stated the worst enemies of truth would be apostate SDA’s. And if Spectrum does not fulfill that prophecy, I don’t know who will.
So, again I wonder if you are really a SDA or not? May I ask, “Is your loyalty to the church a Roman Catholic type loyalty that blindly follows given orders and teachings by the leadership without a careful evaluation based on the bible?”
“Is this the sole reason you challenge Sean in his views of how to defend creation?”
Some have wondered what you do believe, Prof. Kent? I know I have at times. And when you think a mail out of the GC is a waste of time and money, I tend to doubt your “loyalty” to the historic SDA message.
Perhaps you think there is a better way. And maybe there is. If so, then get on with it and tell us what you do that is more productive than a mail out.
For myself, if one in one thousand actually looked the book over and even read a portion of it, I would consider it a great success. Even if 999 were thrown in the trash and never looked at.
Personally, I don’t care much for the Madison Avenue approach of modern advertising that our church uses for evangelism. Even some of the independent ministries go to far in this direction in my opinion. But they are least trying to hold up the biblical standards we all should be supporting.
Hope everyone has a great week.
Keep the faith
Bill Sorensen
Bill Sorensen(Quote)
View CommentKent said……
“If you really want to go for something dramatic, Bill, why not invest in Great Controversy billboards all across the continent that proclaims the Pope to be anti-Christ. Make it a dramatic, apocolyptic scene. Put a phone number on it where people can order their copy. And be sure to put Seventh-day Adventist on it so that we can get lots of people so angry at us that we no longer have an opportunity to witness when people ask us, one on one, what SDAs believe.”
Actually, Professor Kent, about every two years my wife and I mail out first Steps to Christ and then “On the Edge Time” sponsored by the Steps to Christ project to all our neighbors.
I obviously don’t know the full and final effect of our efforts.
I do know that one young mother asked for more information and I visited her. Today she is a member of a Spanish SDA church here in the local area.
So, out of hundreds of mail outs, I know of at least one who had a real interest to know and find the truth.
Do you think it was worth it?
Bill Sorensen
Bill Sorensen(Quote)
View CommentSean said…..
“”Personally, if I ever became convinced that there really is no scientific merit behind the literal seven-day creation week or the worldwide nature of Noah’s flood, or if Darwinian-style evolution one day made good sense to me, I would leave behind not only the SDA Church but Christianity as well.”
The crux of this statement is the fact we have no proof or even evidence that God is who He says He is unless we appeal to prophecy.
Even if you subscribe to ID, and are convinced it is the most rational explanation, you still don’t know who the intelligent being is who did the creating.
Science can not and will not even give you a clue. So how can we identify this “creator”? The God of the bible self affirms and declares His acts and authority and then predicts the future as evidence of His self affirmation.
So, first and foremost, we must identify God since there are “gods many, and lords many.”
So, to affirm ID and not know who it is in the final analysis, worthless. And science would never acknowledge or agree to some miracle power that does not fit the scientific model. Such miracles throw science out the window.
No one can “raise the dead”. or create by the “word of His power.” Science will never harmonize with this biblical affirmation.
Science is a “means of grace” only after the fact. It can tell you what was created but not who did it.
Bill Sorensen
Bill Sorensen(Quote)
View Comment@Professor Kent:
You make it sound as if the Serpent was the one who provided all the empirical evidence to Adam and Eve while God simply expected Adam and Eve to obey His naked word alone without offering any empirical evidence of His own for who He was and why his His word should be trusted and obeyed. Your picture is the reverse of the reality described in the Bible and in the writings of Mrs. White.
It was God, not the Serpent, who offered the superior evidence to Adam and Eve regarding His own identity as their Creator, His personal interest and love for them, and the trustworthiness of His Word. God had provided abundant evidence, far beyond what the Serpent provided, to back up His claims.
It was not, therefore, due to a lack of the clear weight of solid evidence in God’s favor that Adam and Eve fell. They fell because they were tempted by their own selfish desires to do that which they clearly knew was wrong. Their emotions clouded their judgment and they rebelled against the Truth that they knew to be true.
God is not arbitrary. He does not expect blind obedience without first providing abundant evidence regarding the right path to take. It is only when we reject that which we know or could have known to be true, that we deliberately rebel against God and break off our relationship with Him.
After all, anyone can claim to be God. Many different individuals have made this claim. Many different authors have made the claim to have written the very words of God. Rational people cannot be expected to simply accept such claims at face value. Such blind-faith acceptance of face-value claims to Divine authority will result in most people following the wrong voice.
God does not desire this of us – blind obedience to face value claims without any empirical basis for belief. He wants us to make an intelligent decision for Him that is based on a rational understanding of the evidence that He has provided to us for His existence, character, and love for us… evidence that is calculated to appeal to the rational candid minds that He himself made for us and expects us to use.
Is there a leap of faith involved? Sure, as is the case for any rational belief in anything. Even scientific conclusions require a leap of faith to one degree or another.
This isn’t a “faith or evidence” situation. It’s a faith and evidence situation. Faith is not rational without the backing of evidence and evidence is powerless when it comes to deriving useful conclusions without a leap of faith.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentCheck the link that I supplied, Bill. Here are more quotes from Sean Pitman:
“This is why, if I ever became convinced of Darwinism or long-ages for life on Earth, I would leave the SDA Church and probably Christianity as well.” [http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/a-big-reason-why-so-many-people-are-leaving-the-church/]
“Personally, if I ever became convinced that there really is no scientific merit behind the literal seven-day creation week or the worldwide nature of Noah’s flood, or if Darwinian-style evolution one day made good sense to me, I would leave behind not only the SDA Church but Christianity as well.” [http://www.educatetruth.com/theological/dr-ervin-taylor-on-sean-pitmans-truly-heroic-crusade/]
And another from Shane Hilde:
“If I ever became convinced the biblical creation was not true, not only would I leave the Seventh-day Adventist Church, but most likely leave Christianity altogether.” [http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2011/04/26/open-letter-educate-truth]
Professor Kent(Quote)
View Comment@Bill Sorensen:
There’s quite a lot one can learn from the works of an author about that author. The same is true about the works of God. Consider all the things that Paul describes about the power of nature to reveal God’s power and Divine nature.
Now, this isn’t to say, of course, that the Bible isn’t a clearer revelation of God’s character than is God’s “Second Book” of nature. The Bible most certainly is a clearer revelation of God. If it weren’t we wouldn’t have needed it in addition to God’s creative works of nature.
This also isn’t to say that if the Bible happened to be completely inconsistent with empirical reality that it would still maintain credibility with rational candid minds. It is the fact that the Bible is empirically credible that I personally accept it’s claim to Divine origin and authority as valid; far superior to all others who make such a fantastic claim.
In this sense, the Bible is dependent upon the quality of the match between its testable claims and the generally available empirical evidence to support the believability of its mataphysical claims to Divine origin and authority.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentSean said…..
“The lost are not lost because they don’t have adequate evidence.”
Sean, listen, I did not say they did not have adequate evidence.
I did say, “They claim they do not have adequate evidence.”
And I am not talking about what they finally admit in the end. I am talking about their attitude during their probationary time.
Have you ever read any of John Alfke’s comments on Spectrum? The man is a classic defender of sin.
His whole argument is the bible is irrational and can not be understood. Who then is he blaming for his unbelief and sin? God, of course.
He is simply an example in the raw of all of those who justify sin and blame God.
I only use John because he is so obvious an illustration of the point I have made. I doubt he is worse than many others who are not so clear in what they say and what it finally means. As in the case of Elaine Nelson.
Whether any of those people are saved in the end, I can’t say. But I can “judge” their theology and arguments against God and the bible. It is all the same, isn’t it? Some just more subtle than others.
God speaks through His instrumentalities and Satan speaks through his. If people don’t think this controversy is intense, they don’t read their bible much, do they?
Bill Sorensen
Bill Sorensen(Quote)
View CommentSean Pitman said “The term “at face value” means that no other evidence is needed besides what is right there in front of you. That’s it. No other evidence. It means, “to accept something because of the way it first looks or seems, without thinking about what else it could mean.””
I totally disagree. When my wife says about my best friend, “Scott was offended by your remark last night”, I take her word at face value because of evidence I’ve had in the past that she has good judgment. I don’t need to ask about what kinds of evidence she used to reach her decision and I don’t need to seek additional evidence from my other friends who were present, and find out what they thought. I have good reason to accept my wife’s word AT FACE VALUE and I do so.
Professor Kent’s argument is perfectly reasonable. I think you dislike the guy so much that you will disagree with anything he writes. Anything.
And I also disagree with your portrayal of Kent and Brantley espousing “blind faith”. I don’t think they have done this. Kent is right, it’s your straw man argument.
James(Quote)
View Comment@David Read:
Ultimately people who come to any conclusion about the truth of anything that exists outside of their own imaginations must use some degree of faith. This includes the conclusions of scientists as to what is and is not most likely true.
In short, one can’t avoid making leaps of faith when coming to conclusions as to what claims, among many competing claims and potential options, are most likely true.
This isn’t to say, however, that leaps of faith must be entirely blind, without a basis in solid evidence. Without any evidentiary basis, blind leaps of faith are simply no more helpful than is wishful thinking.
For me, the Christian faith can be so much more than mere wishful thinking or fanciful speculation. We aren’t simply peddling “cunningly devised fables” here… – 2 Peter 1:16
No evidence is sufficient to force belief in anything. We are talking about what it would take to convince someone with a rational candid mind who really did want to know and follow the truth. We are not talking about those who will not accept the truth because they don’t want to accept the truth. These kinds of people are the ones Jesus talked about who wouldn’t believe “Even if someone were raised from the dead.” – Luke 16:31 NIV
The faith of all true seekers for truth is always increased by additional information in favor of the truth. It is not blind and cannot increase without evidence. It is for this reason that the faith of the disciples of Jesus increased when they were given empirical evidence by Jesus.
All data are subject to interpretation. No human ideas about the truth of anything that exists outside of the mind are absolutely or can be known with perfection.
This doesn’t mean that the best available empirical evidence cannot be said to clearly favor the Biblical model of origins. I think that such a claim is perfectly valid – and true in my opinion.
Indeed, but not with equal predictive power. The Biblical model of a universal Flood and the recent formation of life has significantly greater explanatory power and is more consistent with the totality of the evidence that is currently available.
The choice for design isn’t just a religious choice, but the best scientific choice for the origin of various genetic features given the totality of genetic evidence – not just one particular feature that can easily be interpreted either way with equal rationality. While the nested pattern can be explained by either deliberate or mindless processes, the associated functionality cannot be equally explained – not even close. The hypothesis of intelligent design is far far superior when it comes to explaining such features.
Not true for many many people who have been converted to Christianity, sometimes against their natural choice, because of the overwhelming nature of the evidence in its favor.
The same thing can be said for the disciples of Jesus who were naturally skeptical people. They didn’t choose Jesus before they had good evidence that he was someone special and they didn’t become bold in faith until they saw the resurrection.
Again, a useful faith doesn’t decrease with evidence, but is based on evidence and increases as the evidence in support of one’s faith increases.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentEllen White unmistakably supports what Bill Sorensen, David Read, Richard Davidson, Mark Finley, Phil Brantley, myself, and most faithful SDAs understand:
Clearly, Eve trusted in her own judgment, having been deceived by the evidence presented to her by the serpent. She failed the simple test of trusting God’s word at face value. Ellen White could not have stated this more clearly. I repeat, Eve was DECEIVED and she DISTRUSTED.
Likewise, we will err should we refuse, as Sean Pitman insists we must, to trust God’s word at face value. Yes, there is evidence that God’s word can be trusted; no one is denying this evidence except Sean for the sake of his petty argument, for which he erroneously equates implicit trust in God’s word with “blind faith.” Again, none of us are arguing there is no evidence, and we are deeply offended at being told over and over (and over and over), “your faith is blind and useless.”
Because Satan can manipulate and take advantage of evidence, it’s clear that God’s word and physical evidence are not a harmonious match on this planet. When God’s word and the physical evidence (science) conflict, faithful SDAs follow God’s word–not their own reason, as Eve did and Sean Pitman boasts he will. Trusting God’s word ahead of the evidence and our own reason is not as useless as believing in Sean’s pasta strawman, the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
You can believe Sean Pitman, and follow his advice to put your trust in evidence and your own reason, or you can believe God.
“Trust in the Lord with all thine heart and lean not unto thine own understanding.” Proverbs 3:5
Professor Kent(Quote)
View Comment@Bill Sorensen:
This is like a kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar blaming his parents for leaving the jar where he could reach it.
Eve’s excuse was of the same character. She knew that she had been given plenty of evidence and warning. She really had no valid excuse – and she knew it. She was simply desperate at this point to point the finger anywhere but at herself where she knew the blame really belonged.
Let me repeat, it was God who had provided the significant weight of evidence in this case – not the Serpent. Consider, the comments of Mrs. White in this regard:
Note again that Eve’s trust of the words of the Serpent over those of God was sinful precisely because she was rejecting the one who had shown her real evidence of his love for her. If God had not done all of these things for her, she would not be guilty of deliberately severing a loving relationship that had been built on abundant evidence.
Again, if any valid excuse or reason for sin could be presented, it would cease to be sin. It would no longer be a form of insanity – of deliberate rebellion against known truth.
There is always room for a free moral agent to claim that he/she has honest doubts if he/she so chooses – however crazy that choice may be. That’s the very definition of moral freedom. However, only God knows if those doubts really are truly honest – if one has or has not deliberately rejected known truth or has deliberately turned down the opportunity to know the truth. God knows, with absolute perfection, what a person knows and to what degree.
It is for this reason, of course, that only God can perfectly judge the heart of a person – their true moral character. You and I cannot judge in this manner because we do not know if another person is or is not being sincere with the same degree of perfection that God uses.
You’re mistaken. The lost are not lost because they don’t have adequate evidence. Even they will readily admit, at the end of time, that all the evidence is in God’s favor and that they fully recognize the justice in God’s actions and in their exclusion from Heaven. They will all bow the knee before God, even Satan, and fully admit their own errors and God’s goodness. If it were just a matter of evidence, God would provide it. The problem is that it isn’t a matter of evidence, but of motive. That’s why the case of those who will be eternally lost is hopeless. There really is nothing God could have done to save them – to change their minds. It is also for this reason that sin is a form of insanity. It makes no rational sense. If it were just a matter of information or evidence, it would make rational sense. There would be a rational reason for its existence – i.e., a lack of enough evidence.
Consider again the words of Mrs. White in this regard:
The only difference between the righteous and the wicked will be motive. Both will fully know and understand the truth and recognize it as the truth before God. However, the wicked will hate what they know is true while the righteous will love what they know is true.
This is also not true. Lucifer knew from the beginning that he was in the wrong. Yet, because of his pride, he refused to admit the error of his ways and come back into a loving relationship with God. It is for this reason that he is eternally lost.
Nope. He concludes, as do his followers, that God was right all along. It is just that this conclusion of truth does not change their hearts to love the truth.
As I’ve already explained to you many times, even prophecy is dependent upon empirical evidence (i.e., empirical science) for its rational validity.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View Comment@ Sean Pitman
You have listed five supernatural events (virgin birth, resurrection of dead, future life in heaven, Noachian flood, and recent fiat creation of life) that cannot be validated empirically. Your distinction between what can and cannot be tested empirically is backward: there is more empirical evidence to reject the possibility of human virgin birth and resurrection of the dead than there is to support a single Noachian flood and recent fiat creation of life. All of these are miracles performed by God that can only be accepted by faith–much like nurturing a personal relationship with God, including communication with Him by prayer and meditation, is strictly an exercise in faith.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentNo SDAs or Christians advocate “blind” faith. It’s YOUR red herring to make YOUR deeply rooted confidence in evidence, human reason, and science look inviting. You have stated numerous times that if Scripture was refuted by modern evidence, you would choose the latter over God’s word. Your heterodox theology undermines the SDA fundamental beliefs.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentPeeves, tear-stained sleeves; believe it believe!
From the left and right, from lectern and pew
From three hundred sixty degrees, all this cry and hew.
This new crusade’s enough to make our angels grieve.
Wesley Kime(Quote)
View CommentYou think?
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentPhil Brantley is unquestionably correct in his attitude toward Scripture. The problem is that Phil’s attitude toward science and science education in an Adventist setting do not build upon, and effectively conflict with, his stated attitude toward Scripture.
Phil holds that naturalism is the indispensable ingredient in science, including origins science. But if, as Phil writes, science and indeed all human knowledge must be tested by, and held in subjection to, Scripture, then origins science should not be naturalistic but should assume the truth the Genesis narrative as a starting point. Instead, mainstream origins science assumes that there has never been any supernaturalistic intervention at any point in natural history.
And yet Phil argues that creation science is “a farce,” and mainstream origins science should be taught at Seventh-day Adventist Universities, which is the exact opposite of placing all human knowledge in subjection to Scripture. It seems Phil is not practicing what he preaches. He preaches the superiority of Scripture to human reason and knowledge, but in practice regards mainstream science as sacrosanct and untouchable.
I don’t disagree at all with Phil’s attitude toward Scripture, but I would REALLY put human science in subjection to Scripture by developing an origins science–i.e. “creation science”–that assumes the truth of the biblical narrative.
David Read(Quote)
View Comment@ Holly Pham: Surely the Church could use its money in better ways than distributing millions of hard copies of The Great Controversy to landfills (via mailboxes). The project would have been more successful about five decades ago, in my estimation. My question for you: what specific prophecy has the discussion at Spectrum fulfilled?
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentSean Pitman wrote:
“Trust in the Lord with all thine heart, and lean not unto thine own understanding.” (Proverbs 3:5)
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentSean Pitman wrote:
“I, personally, would have to go with what I saw as the weight of empirical evidence. This is why if I ever honestly became convinced that the weight of empirical evidence was on the side of life existing on this planet for hundreds of millions of years, I would leave not only the SDA Church, but Christianity as well…” [http://www.educatetruth.com/theological/the-credibility-of-faith/]
Did you say this or not, Sean?
Bill Sorensen
Bill Sorensen(Quote)
View Comment