This is very discouraging. I guess I was naive enough …

Comment on La Sierra University gets 3-year AAA Accreditation by Mark Brown.

This is very discouraging. I guess I was naive enough to think that the worst that would happen would be that the AAA would say that its hands are tied. I didn’t think they would give LSU encouragement. Did they provide any evidence of LSUs progress in the right direction?

Are there any other possible ways for our church leadership to deal with this problem since the AAA is not going to address it?

Recent Comments by Mark Brown

The Basis of Biblical Credibility
Why would you challenge Gene’s personal exposure on a subject while your consistent position is to “accept in good faith consensus conclusions in others as closer to the truth than my facile understanding”?

LSU Removes Dr. Lee Grismer as Chairman of the Biology Department
@Mark Brown: Bill you wrote: “One thing we know for sure, Mark, is EGW is not writing in a vacuum. So we must consider all she wrote before knowing exactly what she meant. But in the end, it does not matter what she wrote when the bible is clear enough for anyone who wants to know the tru4th.”

I do not see that your statement applies to this quote as EGW was recording what the angel said.

From the scriptures below, it is not unreasonable to reject the concept of original sin:

Deut. 24:16 – The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

Ezek. 18:20 – The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

John 8:34 – Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.

John 9:41 – Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

John 15:22 – If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak for their sin.

James 1:14-15 – But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

James 4:17 – Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth [it] not, to him it is sin.

1John 3:4 – Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

LSU Removes Dr. Lee Grismer as Chairman of the Biology Department
@Bill Sorensen: And EGW agrees with me, ” Upon all rests the guilt of crucifying the Son of God. To all, forgiveness is freely offered. “Whosoever will” may have peace with God, and inherit eternal life. {CSA 37.5}”

This EGW quote can be interpreted either way. For instance, “Because all are guilty through Adam, upon all rests the guilt…” or “Because all have chosen sin, upon all rests the guilt…” This quote is of itself is not clear enough to prove either position. However, the following quote in which EGW quotes an angel is much clearer:

Said the angel: “If light come, and that light is set aside or rejected, then comes condemnation and the frown of God; but before the light comes, there is no sin, for there is no light for them to reject.” {1T 116.1}

Bill, it’s not fair to claim that all who reject original sin are in rebellion. The concept of sin is more complicated than the timing of the Sabbath (context of the quote above), and it is clear that God was very gracious towards those that were still growing in their understanding of this simple truth. If God did not consider them rebellious, then it would be reasonable for you to extend the same graciousness to others on the topic of original sin.

The Full History of La Sierra University vs. Louie Bishop

@Professor Kent: “Evidence comes in many forms, the most valuable being personal experience so far as God is concerned.”

Your position is subjective rationalism. The Bible advocates objective empiricism. If the basis of truth and evidence is personal experience, then why disagree with Sean or anyone as we all have different experiences?

Gideon asked for evidence and received it with his fleece. (Empirical evidence)

Hezekiah wanted a sign that he would be healed, so God turned back the sun dial. (Empirical evidence)

John the Baptist sent his disciples to verify if Jesus was in fact the Messiah. Jesus said nothing, but simply told them to share what they witnessed with John. (Empirical evidence)

Jesus put forth his pierced hands before the disciples to show that He had been risen. (Empirical evidence)

Rev. 20:12 – And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. (The basis of the judgment is empirical evidence)

How are true and false prophets to be identified? Matt. 7:20 – Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. (Empirical evidence). Deut. 18:22 – When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that [is] the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, [but] the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him. (Empirical evidence).

Sean has previously quoted Romans and Psalms to show that the Bible supports the empirical method of interpreting evidence – particularly regarding nature/science. I have not seen you provide Biblical evidence for subjective rationalism being God’s preferred method of understanding the relationship between faith and science. You have provided your own thoughts, but since you claim to believe in the scriptures, can you provide scriptural support for your position?

The Full History of La Sierra University vs. Louie Bishop
@pauluc: If science is dependent upon peer reviewed literature, wouldn’t that mean that the origins of science was shortly after the creation of paper?