Educate Truth shares the following article published by the Adventist News Network as a service to readers.
By Mark A. Kellner
La Sierra University (LSU), a Seventh-day Adventist Church-owned school in Riverside, California, will have a year to demonstrate its faithfulness to church teaching on creation, at which time its current accreditation by the Adventist Accrediting Association, or AAA, will be reviewed. The school’s denominational accreditation has been extended to December 31 of next year, with reaccreditation subject to an on-site review by a AAA panel in the second quarter of 2012, and AAA board action in October 2012.
The unusual action followed two years of controversy that has roiled the southeastern California campus and generated extensive comment by Seventh-day Adventist leaders and members across North America and the world church. The La Sierra decision, during which a wide range of options were debated, came among several actions taken the regular biennial AAA board meeting held at the General Conference’s headquarters in Silver Spring, Maryland, on April 4, 2011.
“Although La Sierra University has deviated from the philosophy and objectives of Seventh-day Adventist education,†the voted action reads, “it is moved that the university be granted an extension of accreditation to December 31, 2012 in order for the university to act upon its commitments and implement changes and enhancements†involving the teaching of origins at the school. The action extending the university’s current term of accreditation did not address the prospect of a new term, up to five years in length.
Accrediting executives’ rationale
“This was a challenging and complex decision,” said Lisa M. Beardsley, director of the General Conference Education Department. “The AAA board took into consideration the report of the AAA team that visited the campus in November 2010, and events that have transpired since, such as the actions of the institutional board, the finding of its special subcommittee, and the open letter published in March by the university. After careful and prayerful consideration, the board expressed its will as a body by means of a written ballot so that all views could be honored.”
Ella Smith Simmons, a general vice president of the world church and member of the AAA board, said, “Given the recent acknowledgement made by the La Sierra University board and administration, this action seeks to create a bridge for the university to meet its stated commitments and the accrediting requirements to give priority to the standards of Seventh-day Adventist education in harmony with the Church’s official beliefs.â€
“The AAA Board has attempted to find a balance between punitive and redemptive help to the university in support of the LSU Board’s recent statements,” added Larry Blackmer, vice president for Education of the North American Division and another AAA board member.
Membership in the Adventist Accrediting Association board includes the director and associate directors of the General Conference Education department; General Conference vice presidential advisers for education; directors of education from each of the church’s 13 world divisions; one representative each from a college/university board chair; a college/university president; an academic vice president or dean; a registrar or admissions officer; a finance officer; an academic department chair of education; a union conference education director; and a local conference education director. Also included are three individuals with international Adventist educational experience; two education specialists not employed by the church; and the General Conference officers — specifically the president, secretary and treasurer.
What lies ahead
In order to retain AAA accreditation, the school administration and board of trustees will, among other steps, have to demonstrate that it is honoring its commitments to “continue to endorse the official Seventh-day Adventist Church statement on creation”; “resource and nurture faculty in an atmosphere in which official Seventh-day Adventist Church positions on creation and origins are taught and honored”; so that the Church’s creation position “is presented in instructional contexts” and also is “presented as the university’s position on origins.”
The university will also have to show it is fulfilling its pledge to develop “specific goals” to assist “LSU students of other faiths to find meaning in and understanding of Seventh-day Adventist values and official beliefs, including those regarding creation and human origins.” According to one of the examples set forth in the voted action, “decisions regarding faculty appointments and development [must be] aligned with board and university commitments to ensure the acceptance and teaching of official Seventh-day Adventist beliefs regarding creation and origins within instructional and co-curricular contexts.”
The AAA is also requiring that LSU’s “board governance structure and function are enhanced to provide fuller participation in its fiduciary responsibility for the university,” again, in keeping with a commitment the school has made.
Decision was a surprise
Following a protracted discussion that lengthened a scheduled three-hour meeting into four hours, the AAA board voted to extend the school’s current church-based accreditation, but did not offer the full new term La Sierra had anticipated. On February 8, La Sierra announced a AAA site visit team’s recommendation “that ‘in their opinion, and subject to AAA approval, La Sierra University should receive the maximum accreditation possible under AAA guidelines.'” The school has since removed that statement from its website.
The accreditation issue — which includes denominational recognition by the church and qualifies a school for certain appropriations from denominational funds — arose following a two-year controversy over La Sierra’s teachings on human origins. Beginning in 2009, critics, including some church leaders, laypersons and LSU students claimed that the school taught the theory of evolution to biology students as the explanation for the origin of life.
Seventh-day Adventists believe “God is Creator of all things, and has revealed in Scripture the authentic account of His creative activity. In six days the Lord made ‘the heaven and the earth’ and all living things upon the earth, and rested on the seventh day of that first week,” as noted in the church’s Fundamental Beliefs.
La Sierra responds
In a statement to Adventist Review, La Sierra spokesman Larry Becker said, “Although La Sierra University has taken affirmative steps toward resolution of the controversy regarding how creation and evolution are taught in its classes, the AAA Board believed that it is necessary for more time to transpire in order for the university board, faculty, and administration to demonstrate its determination to put in place the steps that the faculty and administration have agreed with the board to implement.”
The LSU statement continued: “University administration appreciates the extension of its current full accreditation as a Seventh-day Adventist university through December 31, 2012. The AAA Board has outlined a specific process moving forward, and we recognize the need for these steps. We look forward to the AAA visit to our campus next year. The board, administration and faculty are already working together to ensure that we provide the outstanding Adventist education desired by our students, our constituents, and our Church.”
La Sierra President Randal R. Wisbey and Ricardo Graham, Pacific Union Conference president and La Sierra trustee board chairman, admitted La Sierra’s shortcomings on the subject in a March 9 open letter.
“We found that only 50 percent of the students surveyed agreed or strongly agreed that our Adventist view of creation was presented, and only 40 percent agreed or strongly agreed that our Adventist view was supported,” Wisbey and Graham wrote. “This is not acceptable, and we apologize,” they added.
Further, “instruction at the university, while being strong in many areas, has not adequately presented the denomination’s position on the subject of creation,” according to the document.
And, “there is some evidence that students have not always been respected for their belief in the Biblical creation position,” the March 9 La Sierra statement said.
According to the AAA’s accreditation handbook, “Accreditation of an institution by AAA signifies that the institution has a purpose appropriate to service the educational needs of those in its constituency and has the resources, programs, and services sufficient to accomplish the institution’s goals.”
School’s history
Founded in 1922 as a Seventh-day Adventist academy, La Sierra grew over the years and became a full-fledged college in 1946. In 1967, it merged with Loma Linda University and became that school’s liberal arts wing, reorganizing as an independent institution in 1990.
In 2010, the school reported 2,098 students had registered at the start of the current school year. Last year’s registration of 440 freshman surpassed 2009’s freshman class of 348 by 26.4 percent, La Sierra said in a statement.
Thanks for your response, Ken. Of course you do not have to answer the question – which was not about the flood. The question was asking your advice about how one should go about warning loved ones of a cateclysmic event of which you have absolute knowledge and your loved ones do not.
The “end of the world” is coming. When it comes, there are no second chances. The preparation for the event is a preparation of the heart and mind. There are many who experientially KNOW a relationship with their Creator and are thus making preparation. Others who do not have the experience / relationship, simply do not understand. How can one penetrate that invisible barrier of complacency?
From our “reality” the ideas of such events can seem a bit far-fetched. After all, society is on an evolutionary continuum that takes us into the new age of hyper-knowledge, right? We will conquer space and populate new planets… etc…ect…ect, right? Will the fantasies of Star Trek be our future reality? Will we discover the gene that causes us to age and thus be able to find “eternal life” from within our own scientific endeavors?
AS humans we have generally failed to recognize the issues that are involved in where we find ourselves today. There is actually a record of how we came to exist, why, and an expected outcome. It is all about a great intelligence that is “God” and one of His created beings who led many in a great rebellion….
I could go on – but I think you know the story. This forum is insufficient to have the needed discussion.
Would you do me a favor? I will provide a link here. You may have to copy and paste it to your browser – I am not sure. Will you invest the 15 min or so it would take to read this chapter?
http://www.whiteestate.org/books/da/da1.html
Your believer friend,
Charles
Charles(Quote)
View CommentRe Charles Quote
“Would you do me a favor? I will provide a link here. You may have to copy and paste it to your browser – I am not sure. Will you invest the 15 min or so it would take to read this chapter?”
Hi Charles
Thank you my friend. I will certainly take the time to read your link. My very good Adventist pastor friend Ron Henderson did send me the Messenger of the Lord which I have read and enjoyed.
I think I understand Adventist eschatology. Empirically I watch for the signs, the imposition of the universal Sunday law, etc., to test its predictive merit. Don’t see them yet. In fact I think we are moving in the opposite direction from a one world order towards a more democratic world ( Arab spring) where no world power would ever be able to enforce a Sunday day of worship. If that happens I’ll be on the Adventist front line advocating my friends’ right to worship on Saturday.
And while I am at it, let me emphasize that I have great respect for the Bible. An amazing book. I do think it is a record, but not necessarily an exclusive one, of ‘Man’s’ experience. But it may also be that if, as our friend Bob surmises, there is a universal Holy Spirit, it speaks to humans in a variety of ways, e.g was Gandhi influenced by it?
I think if we keep open minds and hearts, good people will find ways to make the world and humanity better, no matter what our beliefs.
Well, got to make my daily bread to support the teenagers.
Take care
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View CommentKent – you are spinning the point. If you want to actually make a case – you will have to show that your complaining on the thread I mentioned – is really as calm and mild as you now want to claim with Charles on this thread.
Try quoting the harsh accusations you actually made on that other thread — and then explaining to Charles how that is not accusing those who choose to accept 3SG 90-91 of being mean spirited and unchristian.
if you do not have the interested in exposing that problem in this your most recent flurry of accusations – I am happy to quote you … for you.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentHere is the thread you may wish to visit to see just what Kent means when he accuses people who believe in 3SG 90-91 of being mean spirited and unchristian.
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/a-big-reason-why-so-many-people-are-leaving-the-church/comment-page-2/#comment-30301
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentRe Charles Quote
“Would you do me a favor? I will provide a link here. You may have to copy and paste it to your browser – I am not sure. Will you invest the 15 min or so it would take to read this chapter?”
Hi Charles
Thank you my friend. I will certainly take the time to read your link. My very good Adventist pastor friend Ron Henderson did send me the Messenger of the Lord which I have read and enjoyed.
I think I understand Adventist eschatology. Empirically I watch for the signs, the imposition of the universal Sunday law, etc., to test its predictive merit. Don’t see them yet. In fact I think we are moving in the opposite direction from a one world order towards a more democratic world ( Arab spring) where no world power would ever be able to enforce a Sunday day of worship. If that happens I’ll be on the Adventist front line advocating my friends’ right to worship on Saturday.
And while I am at it, let me emphasize that I have great respect for the Bible. An amazing book. I do think it is a record, but not necessarily an exclusive one, of ‘Man’s’ experience. But it may also be that if, as our friend Bob surmises, there is a universal Holy Spirit, it speaks to humans in a variety of ways, e.g was Gandhi influenced by it?
I think if we keep open minds and hearts, good people will find ways to make the world and humanity better, no matter what our beliefs.
Well, got to make my daily bread to support the teenagers.
Take care
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View CommentKent – you are spinning the point. If you want to actually make a case – you will have to show that your complaining on the thread I mentioned – is really as calm and mild as you now want to claim with Charles on this thread.
Try quoting the harsh accusations you actually made on that other thread — and then explaining to Charles how that is not accusing those who choose to accept 3SG 90-91 of being mean spirited and unchristian.
if you do not have the interested in exposing that problem in this your most recent flurry of accusations – I am happy to quote you … for you.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentHere is the thread you may wish to visit to see just what Kent means when he accuses people who believe in 3SG 90-91 of being mean spirited and unchristian.
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/a-big-reason-why-so-many-people-are-leaving-the-church/comment-page-2/#comment-30301
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentCan we edit in html here?
Charles(Quote)
View Comment“The angels of glory find their joy in giving,–giving love and tireless watchcare to souls that are fallen and unholy. Heavenly beings woo the hearts of men; they bring to this dark world light from the courts above; by gentle and patient ministry they move upon the human spirit, to bring the lost into a fellowship with Christ which is even closer than they themselves can know.”
This is true. If one rejects it without opening themselves to it, one probably will never understand.
The work of salvation is one of entreating and wooing. By the definition of real love, it cannot be forced.
Do I mean that there is something that such an all-powerful God – that can create the universe – cannot have? Unless one gives it to Him? Yes, that is exactly correct. He who created this world and everything by the breath of His mouth, wants each of us individually – that is the same as if there was not another in the universe for Him to love. And He cannot have it, unless we give it to Him.
Open yourself and pray. Be vunerable to the coaxing of the Holy Spirit, and He will teach you. And when He does, you will have no question as to how you came to be here, why you are here, and how it all ends. Be honest. He will lead you there. I know.
Charles(Quote)
View CommentNo shortage of the usual hubris here from Bob “3SG-is-everything” Ryan. I never said that those who believe in 3SG 90-91 are mean-spirited or unChristian.
I warmly invite anyone to read the thread Bob pointed to and see just who is being mean-spirited.
PK
Professing Christ until the whole world hears
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentHere is a quote from that thread – in this case the quote is from you – as you accuse others of being mean spirited and/or unchristian.
You clearly argue that merely to accept and believe 3SG 90-91 is to treat fellow Christians mean and unchristian.
Again – how were we supposed to miss that?
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentCan we edit in html here?
Charles(Quote)
View Comment“The angels of glory find their joy in giving,–giving love and tireless watchcare to souls that are fallen and unholy. Heavenly beings woo the hearts of men; they bring to this dark world light from the courts above; by gentle and patient ministry they move upon the human spirit, to bring the lost into a fellowship with Christ which is even closer than they themselves can know.”
This is true. If one rejects it without opening themselves to it, one probably will never understand.
The work of salvation is one of entreating and wooing. By the definition of real love, it cannot be forced.
Do I mean that there is something that such an all-powerful God – that can create the universe – cannot have? Unless one gives it to Him? Yes, that is exactly correct. He who created this world and everything by the breath of His mouth, wants each of us individually – that is the same as if there was not another in the universe for Him to love. And He cannot have it, unless we give it to Him.
Open yourself and pray. Be vunerable to the coaxing of the Holy Spirit, and He will teach you. And when He does, you will have no question as to how you came to be here, why you are here, and how it all ends. Be honest. He will lead you there. I know.
Charles(Quote)
View CommentNo shortage of the usual hubris here from Bob “3SG-is-everything” Ryan. I never said that those who believe in 3SG 90-91 are mean-spirited or unChristian.
I warmly invite anyone to read the thread Bob pointed to and see just who is being mean-spirited.
PK
Professing Christ until the whole world hears
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentHere is a quote from that thread – in this case the quote is from you – as you accuse others of being mean spirited and/or unchristian.
You clearly argue that merely to accept and believe 3SG 90-91 is to treat fellow Christians mean and unchristian.
Again – how were we supposed to miss that?
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentThis site used to allow editing – I don’t know why that is turned off now.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentMy statement was that there are those who accept theistic evolution but still believe the Bible is true and treat fellow Christians with more love and respect than you often do (as evidenced by the way you treat me and other contributors to this site).
I never wrote anything remotely close to suggesting that those who “accept and believe 3SG 90-91” are “mean and unChristian” in the way they treat fellow Christians.
I don’t understand why you have recently made this website mostly about the imagined writings and opinions of Professor Kent. It’s bizarre beyond belief.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentWhen 3SG 90-91 addresses the TE problem – there is no hint at all that Ellen White claims “Theistic Evolutionists don’t exist”.
Instead she boldly asserts their claim to accept and believe the Bible.
It is more than a little surprising that this point keeps getting lost on your responses.
Hint: I am not the one arguing that person A has more love and respect than person B.
I leave the pure ad hominem to others.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentNo kidding, Bob. Are you trying to make a point?
As I pointed out, she stated that theistic evolutionists undermine belief in the seventh-day Sabbath. She does not claim in 3SG that they no longer believe the Bible. It is more than a little surprising that this point keeps getting lost on your responses.
Hint: I am not seeing theistic evolutionists disrespecting others the way you do at this website.
That would be nice. Perhaps your future posts could deal with a topic other than me and my imagined quotes and beliefs.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentI think this is good.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1lFYO5zE-c
Maybe a bit on the dramatic side but accurate.
We live in the time of the end and little time is left.
Conspiracy Theories? “End of World?” If so, does much else matter?
This does not fit into any model of evolution – which would predict that we will continue to evolve toward perfection and someday create our own “Heaven”.
The issue is: What do you accept as true and how will you respond?
For me at this time, nothing else does much matter – except that I could persuade anyone – especially those I love – to be on the correct side of the issues.
Charles(Quote)
View CommentCharles – that is a great video to share with non-SDAs as a discussion starter.
We used those segments (about 7 minutes each) for key parts of an evangelistic series as the topics in that list came up.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentYou keep repeating that self-conflicted statement as if you have done a good thing.
1. If a TE were to no longer believe the Bible – they would be in Darwin’s position — an agnostic at best. No longer a TE. You keep circling back to “TE’s exist” as if this makes sense as an answer to the warning against being a TE in 3SG 90-91.
We find your logic “illusive” at that point to say the least.
2. As for the fact that the term “infidel” and “infidelity” in context of the Christian faith and acceptance of the Bible — indicates a problem leading away from faith and not toward it – I leave it as an exercise for the reader to take the 5 minutes to check that point out.
Start by clicking on some informative link of your choice. Almost anyone will do – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infidel
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentWe see in 3SG 90-91 that the TE position is a disguised form of infidelity – in that it claims to accept and believe in the Bible – thus distinguishing itself of from upfront outright infidelity.
We see in 3SG 90-91 that it gets to the point of infidelity by first undermining the role of God as our Creator – foundational to the Bible itself in Gen 1, and foundational to the Gospel itself in John 1.
That much is obvious.
The point that is not so obvious – and seldom addressed here is the story that some of our TE “defending” posters would like to propose as to how we are supposed to bend the 3SG statement?
Was it supposed to be bent in such a way that TE is realy “not all that bad”?
If so — how?
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentI have never had such a bizarre conversation in my life.
I’m finished with Bob and his enduring obsession with 3SG. A simple Google search for “3SG” at this website lists “about 340 results.” There is nothing more to be said about 3SG, although we will no doubt read about it over and over and over and over and over again. Stay tuned!
I have little doubt that anyone by this point is even paying the slightest attention–which I think is a good thing.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View Comment@Professor Kent: “I have little doubt that anyone..is even paying the slightest attention”?
Nobody here but us Onlooking Universe.
oink(Quote)
View CommentSDA faith and belief is a big picture. To be sure, the faith and teachings will deny any form of evolution that puts doubt into the literal account from scripture.
Creationism as a topic is a small but integral and important part of the faith – important enough that the faith will fall if creationism is removed. The basis for God’s law and His authority to put it in place is based on His Creatorship. If God were just a smart scientist, then there could conceivably the others with a valid claim to portions of the universe – even including earth.
But a careful and deep study renders such notions as foolish. God is the Omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent Creator of everything and we draw our very lives from His power. He knows the end from the beginning and has given us a glimpse of it through prophecy. The whole picture is presented in understandable form from scripture and anyone who honestly and earnestly desires to know the truth of our reality, can do so.
Because of the reality of His Creatorship, that is why the Sabbath and other aspects of truth are so important. The majority will not believe it but SDAdventism does.
I know it is so. And I know time is very short.
Charles(Quote)
View CommentRe Prof Kent
“I have little doubt that anyone by this point is even paying the slightest attention–which I think is a good thing.”
Dear Prof Kent and Bob
We are. Sadly, not to the redundant substance of your dispute, but to the reason for it.
Excellent men and woman, like my friends Ron Henderson, Wes Kime, Sean, Shane, Charles,Lydian, you two too, from whom I am far more apart in faith than you and Bob, honour me with respect, tolerance and kindness. I am hopeful that you two will be able to do likewise and show this old infidel what Christian love is all about.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
ken(Quote)
View CommentKen – it has long been stated in our particular denomination that any attempt to curb a wrong course of action will be met with the “complaint” that stopping error is “mean spirited and unchristian”.
While you are clearly someone who does not regard the Bible as the Word of God – you are never the subject of the criticism by either group here – because you come to that conclusion as an agnostic – not as a Seventh-day Adventist.
But when we have such problems coming from inside the church – we tend to be a bit more critical of the idea of promoting that as if it just another “big tent” theme inside this group.
And of course – when that point of criticism is brought up – someone will surely object, maybe even claim that it is mean spirited or unchristian to claim that evolutionism undermines Christianity itself.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentAs for the claim that addressing error inside the church will be denounced as mean spirited and unchristian. A few pages come to mind.
This gives you some idea of the “historic context” we have when it comes to “what to expect” should anyone dare to address the problem of theistic evolutionism being promoted from inside the Adventist Church.
Given the statement above we would not even BEGIN to think that taking a stand for what is right in this extreme case will result in no opposition at all , no false charges at all, no complaints about someone being mean spirited or unchristian.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentI’m afraid, Ken, that you are getting quite the education. I can assure you that those convicted of the Educated Truth, and the Righteousness of Justified Actions, represent a very small fraction of the Church.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentAs was noted on this thread – the classic history behind such “it is mean spirited and unchristian to accept 3SG 90-91 for what it say” solution was already fully explored here –
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/la-sierra-university-granted-window-to-show-its-faithfulness-to-church%e2%80%99s-creation-belief/comment-page-1/#comment-30417
If stating the obvious about theistic evolutionism leading to what 3SG 90-94 calls “infidelity” – does not get some false charges about someone being “mean spirited and unchristian” then that post at the link above would have had no evidence in suppoprt of it.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentDear Bob and Prof Kent
I hear you.
Can one ever hope to gain hearts and minds by claiming to be holier than thou?
From my Sunday school days I fondly remember the story of Jesus washing the feet of others.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View CommentAnyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness. I John 2:9.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentQuite honestly, I miss the point of the whole heated debate. But it is clear to me that few are ever converted by losing an argument.
I don’t know what 3SG 90-94 is – sounds like a SOP quote. I would make a couple of points here – stated as my studied belief about SDAdventism: (1) Any form of evolution attacks the fundamentals of SDA faith. AND (2) I believe it (evolution) should be studied in our SDA schools only from the perspective to refute it for its fallacies.
It has been a very long time. I’ll pass on trying to discuss the details.
Charles(Quote)
View CommentSorry Prof, your ananlyis is completely wrong. Look at all the programs on 3ABN, Hope Channel, Amazing Facts, Amazing Discoveries from numerous churches around America preaching about “creation” Genesis 1, and similar subjects. They’re on virtually every day, usually many times per day.
Don’t see any on “evolution as fact” programs, even on LLBN,the most liberal of our SDA networks. (LLBN even has Desmond Ford on occasion!)
The “very small fraction” represents the vast majority of our members and our leadership, with the major exception being the Pacific Union Conference!
Ron Stone M.D.(Quote)
View CommentIndeed they cannot.
However the mere act of accusing someone of those actions is not the same as finding them guilty of the same.
As I have pointed out in the link below – there were a lot of complaints surfacing in the 1800’s of the same “you are being unchristian because you dare to address a problem in the church” fashion that were circulating against anyone who dared to address a problem in the church.
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/la-sierra-university-granted-window-to-show-its-faithfulness-to-church%e2%80%99s-creation-belief/comment-page-1/#comment-30417
The mere act of accusing people of being means spirited and unchristian if they dare to address sin in the church — is not some new feature of the 21’st century.
Neither does the mere issuing of the accusation show it to be valid.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentCredit where Credit is due on these random statements. That is a true statement above.
So also the James 2 point “the devils believe and tremble”.
I think all sides agree to these basic points.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentYou’re right: lots of programming. However, most of the programming balances origins with other important spiritual and lifestyle issues, and makes an explicit appeal to join the SDA Church rather than “get out or we will force you out.” And most of the viewership does not take the dogmatic view that it’s “our way or the highway.”
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentI would never suggest that they do.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View Comment“…there are those who accept theistic evolution but still believe the Bible is true…”
The Bible absolutely refutes “theistic evolution”. If someone accepts TE and also thinks he believes the Bible, then he is not very acquainted with his Bible.
Among a host of other examples, Jesus demonstrated the level of power that He has when He raised Lazarus from death. Jesus made a point of the miraculous nature of what he was going to do by letting Lazarus stay in the tomb for three days – until the decay of his body was advanced and the smell permeated the area. Then Jesus called him to life – instantly. There was no evolutionary or scientific process involved. It was Jesus working on the level of the “miraculous” – power we can know that He has but the ways are not revealed.
The Bible clearly teaches a seven literal day creation by the miraculous words of Jesus. Sure He has His way of doing it but that is not revealed to mankind – probably because we could not understand it anyway. Prior to Moses, the genelogies were passed from generation to generation until Moses wrote them down. The historical timelines of scripture are presented as accurate in much detail. Either, one accepts it as true, OR one does not. But in no way can it be reasonably construed as an evolutionary process.
There are many things about scripture and the realities of our world today that builds my confidence in scripture. One of them is the weekly cycle (regardless of which day one observes as holy). The whole world observes the same weekly cycle. The days are the same (except for language differences) and they are all seven day weeks. No one on earth can choose to observe a six or an eight day week. Where did this universal week come from? Can anyone point to any reasonable evidence that there was a time when there was no weekly cycle?
We have our days – created by the turning of the earth relative to the sun. We have our years – created by the trip of earth around the sun. Our monthly cycles come from the trip of the moon around the earth. From whence comes the week? It is just as universally observed as are the days, months and years. But there is no astronomical function that marks the week. God gave the week to the first Man and it has been passed on through the generations from the creation to us.
Why does this seem so clear and so many cannot see it? The most ardent teacher of evolution locks his office door and heads home for the “weekend”. Whether he honors any day or not, he is still bearing a testamony to the fact that this earth was created in seven literal days.
Maybe someone disagrees. That is okay. I honestly don’t see how, but your Creator has given you the ability and the choice to draw your own conclusions. The evidence is abundant in the way I just described and hundreds or thousands of other ways as well.
Most respectfully,
Charles
Charles(Quote)
View CommentIn the 3SG 90-94 reference we see that “TE’s EXIST” and that the problem they present is one that is to be considered the “worst form of infidelity” because it is “infidelity in disquise”.
How innexplicable then the retort sometimes found on this web site that is of the form “yes – but TE’s exist so how can that be true”.
To which I might say “Hello – ” !. A TE by definition is one who thinks he can marry belief in evolutionism to acceptance of the Bible.
I am sure we all see that point.
Certainly I agree with you that there is in fact no logical way to marry TE to the Bible if you really take both of them seriously and think about it for a minute.
Darwin was so convinced of that that he gave up Christianity entirely. Dawkins, Provine and Meyer are all on record as coming to the same conclusion.
3SG 90-94 makes the point abundantly clear.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentYes, there’s “balancing” but not with Creation vs. “evolution as fact.”
Ron Stone M.D.(Quote)
View CommentBob Ryan won’t do it, Sean Pitman won’t do it, David Read won’t do it, Shane Hilde won’t do it, Ron Stone won’t do it, Wesley Kime won’t do it, Ken won’t do it, Dawkins won’t do it, Provine won’t do it, Meyer won’t do it, Eddie won’t do it, and Professor Kent won’t do it.
Okay. But millions of Christians do marry TE and the Bible. How sad that they succeed in such an illogical venture. Let’s pray for them.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentThey “succeed” by self-deception–the easiest deception in the world!
Ron Stone M.D.(Quote)
View CommentRe Charles Quote
“So we are all on the same page?
“TE and scripture are mutually exclusive principles?”
Hi Charles
Thanks for your comments.
I guess that would depend on how one interprets scripture. I’d agree if one is a conservative Adventist you’d be right. I’d say if one was an OEC creationist, that doesn’t think think the 6 days of creation were 24 hours long or recent, you’d be wrong. What is notable, as emphatically demonstrated on this site, is how birds of a feather that flock together all have gradients of at least slightly different biblical interpretation. What does that mean as to who is right or wrong?
Prof Kent is right about me, I am not a theistic evolutionist. For me the jury is still out on if there is , and the nature of, a design behind evolution.
However, I think the area of ID is a very interesting and should not be given scientific short shrift. But I think ID can be explored by all on an objective, rather than faith, or non- faith basis. I think the mistake that Dr. Pitman makes in this regard is to marry his conclusions to the prophetic statements of EGW and treat that blend as science. I understand and respect why he does it, but I think that method is tied to a deep bias that may well cloud his objective judgment. By the way, I think Dawkins, and possibly Hawkings, may suffer from a similar atheistic bias.
The fact that we exist is prima facie proof of some type of creation and hence logically a first cause. Yes time is relative and may not have existed in our universe before the big bang, or biblical creation, but it seems to have started at some point didn’t it? Was the first cause God or is this a conceptual concoction of Man? I don’t know but will be intrigued by that question until my demise. If David is right and the “stage is slowly being set for a fight over the Sabbath, them perhaps my demise won’t be ‘soon’ :).
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View CommentSo we are all on the same page?
“TE and scripture are mutually exclusive principles?”
Charles(Quote)
View CommentRe Charles Quote
“So we are all on the same page?
“TE and scripture are mutually exclusive principles?â€
Hi Charles
Thanks for your comments.
I guess that would depend on how one interprets scripture. I’d agree if one is a conservative Adventist you’d be right. I’d say if one was an OEC creationist, that doesn’t think think the 6 days of creation were 24 hours long or recent, you’d be wrong. What is notable, as emphatically demonstrated on this site, is how birds of a feather that flock together all have gradients of at least slightly different biblical interpretation. What does that mean as to who is right or wrong?
Prof Kent is right about me, I am not a theistic evolutionist. For me the jury is still out on if there is , and the nature of, a design behind evolution.
However, I think the area of ID is a very interesting and should not be given scientific short shrift. But I think ID can be explored by all on an objective, rather than faith, or non- faith basis. I think the mistake that Dr. Pitman makes in this regard is to marry his conclusions to the prophetic statements of EGW and treat that blend as science. I understand and respect why he does it, but I think that method is tied to a deep bias that may well cloud his objective judgment. By the way, I think Dawkins, and possibly Hawkings, may suffer from a similar atheistic bias.
The fact that we exist is prima facie proof of some type of creation and hence logically a first cause. Yes time is relative and may not have existed in our universe before the big bang, or biblical creation, but it seems to have started at some point didn’t it? Was the first cause God or is this a conceptual concoction of Man? I don’t know but will be intrigued by that question until my demise. If David is right and the “stage is slowly being set for a fight over the Sabbath, them perhaps my demise won’t be ‘soon’ :).
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View CommentI would say “yes.” However, many find it easy to “fool themselves” into the opposite view.
Ron Stone M.D.(Quote)
View CommentI think that our (humans) limitations to the finite sometimes cause us problems. It tries to demand that we ask “Who created the Creator?” We cannot comprehend infinities. How could it be that God had no beginnning but has always been? For me it seems a bit easier to comprehend infinity in time forward than infinity in time past. How could you describe “eternal life”? As the song says, “When we’ve been there 10,000 years… no less days to sing God’s praise than when we first begun.”
Try to describe the biggest number you can imagine. Put years after that number. What would we do with all that time? The idea presents a new infinity – the gathering of knowledge and understanding. And how about endless increasing LOVE?
Is there ever a point when it has all been done?
And where does the universe begin or end? As far as we can tell, it goes on and on with no end? Assuming that God has created everything (which I believe He has), was there ever a time when He was NOT creating or had not yet created anything? Follow that thought to His having been creating an ever expanding universe for eternity past. Is it possible that the universe continues on and on without end? Could there be an end to “space”? If so, what would be beyond it?
The reality is that we as humans cannot begin to comprehend a reality that hypothetically encompanses infinity. We just can’t do it because everything we know has beginnings and ends – whether it be time or space.
But the reality is that we are here. We cannot even explain our own existence and I think that to suggest that it is an accident is actually a major admission of our lack of intelligence.
Imagine that you could stand back and look at a universe with nothing in it. Then you say to yourself, “I want to make something” First of all you have to have “matter”. Then the matter has to have it’s various complex forms. Then you want to get life started within that matter. Consider the billions of complex miracles that have to be functioning in harmony to have that matter (once you have made it) take on the functions required to have “life” – even in its simplest form.
All of this is really here. How did it get started? Even with our human advances in knowledge and understanding of “science” we really cannot explain the most fundamental concept of what really constitutes life. We know when it is in some matter, and we can sure tell when it is gone. But we do not know what it is.
It takes faith to believe in anything about how we got to be here and what the realities of our world are. Given the account in scripture about these great questions, I find the explanation to be much more believable than the notion that it all just somehow happened.
But the important thing to acknowledge is that it is all so much bigger and greater than we are. Yes, infinity does exist and we cannot comprehend it because we are finite. The scriptural acocunt of it all is powerful and compelling for those who give it a fair chance.
There is so much more to say. But that is almost enough for now.
As I write this in the Eastern time zone of the US, the sun will go down in a little less than two hours. I have full confidence that although I do not know exactly how many years it has been since the Creation but I am certain of something: The number of days – including tomorrow – will be divisible by 7. And the number of days since the day that the first Man was created until today, is also divisible by 7.
Happy Sabbath, everyone!
Listen to the “still small voice” of your Creator. He WILL speak to you if you listen.
Charles(Quote)
View CommentDarwin, Dawkins, Meyer, Provine and 3SG 90-94 seem to all agree with that statement.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View Commentindeed TE’s “Exist” – as compelling as that argument seems to be for “some” in solving the self-conflicted logical conundrum of the TE position.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentSo, what is “evolution”. I have always understood the concept to mean that life has moved from lower forms to higher forms.
Make it simple for me. In the scheme of evolution, has mankind evolved from a lower plane to a higher plane over time? Or has mankind moved from a higher plane to a lower plane?
The true author of evolutionary ideas predicted that we would become as Gods.
Genesis 3
1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
Mankind has been on the quest of the serpent’s promise (verse 5) for 6000 years. Is he closer or further from the realization of it?
And is our lifespan longer? Or Shorter? Our vigor? Our intellect?
Are we still dying? Or do we just pass through a door at death?
What does God say?
What does the serpent say?
Charles(Quote)
View CommentIn reality – man has moved from a higher level to a lower level.
In the land of “Fiction” – birds come from reptiles (in fact they come from plants if you want the big picture) and mankind comes from a common ancestor with Chimps.
Which is why Darwin found no place for the Bible alongside his belief in evolutionism.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentAnd we should pay heed to Darwin?
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentHow about “paying heed” to 3SG 90-94?
Or is that asking too much?
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View Comment@Charles: @BobRyan:
Spiritual Gifts Volume 3 – pages 90-94.
Click here to see the chapter –
http://egwdatabase.whiteestate.org/nxt/gateway.dll/egw-comp/section00000.htm/book05137.htm/chapter05149.htm
Obviously some here are referencing this inspired text merely to mock it and those who might dare to read it and take it seriously.
But in so doing they are merely giving the reader another “clue” as to how important it is to actually listen to a message that God gives on this very topic.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentTypically the TEs do not want to notice that the Atheists see a huge problem between the Bible and evolutionism, and they do not want to notice that the Christians see a huge problem between evolutionism and the Bible, and if they are SDA then they do not want to notice divine messages from God on that same topic in 3SG 90-94.
And what is interesting is that some of those atheists used to be Christians – and so would in theory have enjoyed a stop off at the TE booth on their way to being atheists – but found that self-conflicted stop-off too hollow.
Which leaves the TE argumentk left with little more than “yes but TEs exist”.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentMark Finley has just written an awesome article on topic. It states the issues clearly and absolutely establishes the historic SDA position. The article was published in the May 12, 2011 issue of Adventist Review.
“One of the great theological problems with theistic evolution is that it limits God’s power. It exalts natural law above the Creator of natural law. Theistic evolution doesn’t allow for an all-powerful God to miraculously shape our world. It reduces God to the scale of human imagination, and exalts reason above revelation. This was precisely why humanity fell in the beginning. Eve listened to the voice of the serpent in the garden and trusted what her eyes could see rather than what God said. Her mind became the final arbiter of truth.”
“The plain teaching of the Bible doesn’t allow for the earth evolving over billions of years: in Scripture there’s no room for God starting the process and evolution finishing it. God finished what He started in Creation week.”
“In the evolutionary model as proposed by Charles Darwin and successively refined during the past 150 years, death is a necessary component of evolutionary progress. Natural selection teaches that the fittest species survive and the weakest die. In this scenario death is crucial, because it allows the stronger species to thrive. Consequently, death would have occurred for billions of years before humans evolved.”
“The truth of Creation also supplies human beings with a God-given sense of value and dignity. Our roots take us back, not to a primordial slime pit of randomly selected molecules, but to an all-wise, intelligent God who formed us in His image (Gen. 1:27). We are bound together in one common humanity (Acts 17:24-26). God is our loving heavenly Father, who cares for us deeply. Although we live in a fallen world, His presence is constantly with us to encourage and strengthen us to face life’s challenges and heartaches.”
“The name “Seventh-day Adventist†communicates two vital last-day truths—
the Sabbath, and the second coming of Jesus. Evolution, in both its atheistic and theistic forms, undermines both. As we have already shown earlier in this article, there is really no basis for the Sabbath if God didn’t create the world in six days in the first place. Why establish a memorial for something that doesn’t exist? At best the theistic evolutionist might see the Sabbath as a time of rest and social fellowship, but certainly not a memorial of an all-powerful Creator who created our world in six consecutive 24-hour days.”
“The legacy of Lucifer’s rebellion and our first parents’ fall speaks in thunderous tones. To exalt God’s gift of reason above God’s Word is catastrophic. To accept evolution is to abandon the authority of Scripture, salvation through Jesus Christ, the re-creating power of God, the Sabbath, and the second coming of Jesus.”
I don’t know how it could have been said better. Excellent article, Mark.
The entire article can be read here:
http://www.adventistreview.org/issue.php?issue=2011-1513&page=16
Charles(Quote)
View CommentIndeed – that is the problem that Darwin recognized and that Dawkins admits to – and that 3SG 90-94 highlights.
Pretty much everyone sees this – but the TEs – and of course “TEs exist” as some people would like to remind us. 😉
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentWhy do you so often describe Darwin and Dawkins in such favorable terms, as if we should be paying attention to them? Why would you align them with Ellen White? What’s your agenda?
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentThat was not me. It was a quote from Mark Finley’s article.
Charles(Quote)
View CommentThe quote function of this board did not work like I thought. I’ll just cut and paste from now on.
All of the quotes from my 2:36 PM June 4 posting were from Mark Finley’s article.
Charles(Quote)
View CommentAnother Sabbath is here. One more added to 313,000 (a few more or less) Sabbaths since the Creation.
Happy Sabbath!
Charles(Quote)
View CommentI commented on the fact that you cannot marry the Bible to evolutionism as follows.
Well here again – just stating the obvious – when both the atheist and the christian sides agree that it is not logical to marry the Bible to evolutionism then we have one of those rare moments where a point is so glaringly obvious that both sides actually agree.
How unique then – the TE position that claims to be “more in the dark” yes even “more befuddled” than the atheist evolutionist.
Actually I wouldn’t mind explaining that point in more detail if you have an interest.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentCharles – I realize you are quoting Finley at that point – and he makes a good point.
A point that both the Christians and the Atheists easily admit to being the case.
Pretty hard to miss that point… if you are not TE.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentBob
I recall my incredulity some years ago when I reviewed the letter written by:
Michael Zimmerman
Professor of Biology
Butler University
Prior to reading that letter, I was totally lukewarm on the topic of creation vs evolution. Yes, I was raised in the SDA church and took the creation story for granted.
It was not the letter itself that extracted my passion. It was the fact that thousands of “Christian” pastors and leaders had signed the horrible document.
In those days, I downloaded each and every section of the “pastors” – which also listed their denominational affiliations. It was with a cringe that I ran searches on “SDA” or “Adventist” – hoping not to see that a SDA pastor would have signed it. I did not find one in that day. Would I find one today if I ran the search again? I hope not but I no longer think that I could be so sure.
Much of the world has embraced the idea that we evolved from lower forms of life – which ultimately supposedly came from nothing? Why? I don’t know – the idea is not even logical to me. Logically, my own existence is the greatest evidence of the scriptural account of “God” Who created everything “miraculously”.
Sadly, those who deny their Creator by embracing this spurious notion, will be “lost” unless they find their way. A right relationship with God will bring to them to an understanding. It involves a spirit of submission and humbling before their Creator.
“…worship Him Who MADE Heaven and Earth…”
Here is the introduction to the “clergy letter” – written by an athiest biology professor who regards scripture as “beloved stories” that have some timeless value….
Has that old Dragon (Satan) gained some ground or what?
For too long, the misperception that science and religion are inevitably in conflict has created unnecessary division and confusion, especially concerning the teaching of evolution. I wanted to let the public know that numerous clergy from most denominations have tremendous respect for evolutionary theory and have embraced it as a core component of human knowledge, fully harmonious with religious faith.
In the fall of 2004, I worked with clergy throughout Wisconsin to prepare a statement in support of teaching evolution. We were called to action by a series of anti-evolution policies passed by the school board in Grantsburg, WI. The response was overwhelming. In a few weeks, nearly 200 clergy signed the statement, which we sent to the Grantsburg school board on December 16, 2004. Additionally, groups of educators and scientists sent letters to the Grantsburg School Board and to the Superintendent of Schools protesting these policies. In response to all of this attention, as well as the efforts of others, the Grantsburg School Board retracted their policies.
The outpouring of support from clergy around the country encouraged me to make this a nationwide project. If you want to read more about it or join us in sharing this important perspective, click here. Encourage your clergy to consider signing the statement and please feel free to link to these webpages.
The Clergy Letter Project has also sponsored annual Evolution Weekend events. These events provide an opportunity for congregations around the world to come together, in the way each feels most comfortable, to discuss the compatibility of religion and science. By doing so, we are educating thousands and elevating the world-wide discussion of this important topic. If your congregation would like to participate in an Evolution Weekend event, please contact me.
Most recently, The Clergy Letter Project has created a data base of scientists interested in working with clergy members to answer questions about all aspects of evolution. To view this growing list, click here (If you are a scientist and would like to be added to our data base, please send me a note.)
Sincerely,
Michael Zimmerman
Professor of Biology
Butler University
Send your comments to me at mz@butler.edu
Charles(Quote)
View CommentZimmerman’s campaign points to the deep confusion among various Christian denominations when it comes to whether or not they should actually believe the Bible if it contradicts classic atheist evolutionism.
BobRyan(Quote)
View Comment@Charles, There are indeed many so-called “Christian” pastors who have bought a ticket on the “Evolution Express.”
However, I have never seen an actual large survey of SDA ordained pastors regarding their view(s) on this subject. Would the GC, NAD, or even the Pacific Union Conference be willing to do such an analysis, in order to see how our “shepherds” view this matter?
I have done my own “local” survey, and all the pastors say they are creationists.
Ron Stone M.D.(Quote)
View CommentZimmerman’s campaign points to the deep confusion among various Christian denominations when it comes to whether or not they should actually believe the Bible if it contradicts classic atheist evolutionism.
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentReally, I see no difference between “atheistic evolution” or “theistic evolution”. AE is evolution from the viewpoint of an honest person who admits that he is denying the Creation and TE is evolution from the viewpoint of someone who wants to wear the “robe” of a Christian and still deny his Creator.
One simply cannot reconcile true Christianity to evolutionary thought. Trying to do so will undermine the entire teaching of the Bible.
TE seeks to explain and make the Creation possible within scientific constraints. Following the rationale, Jesus was just a really good magician when he fed 5000 from a couple loaves and fishes. And when he raised Lazarous from the dead? Wonder how He did that one? Or what about “walking on water”? Or the virgin birth?
If take that slippery slope, I will end up without any faith whatsoever. I would end up believing that when I die, that is the end for me. After all, what sort of science can bring me back to life?
We can do all of the reasoning we want. And we can argue on and on with those who cannot accept the plain teaching of scripture about how and why we are here – as well as our destiny. But there is abundant experiential evidence available to those who will be humble and prayerfully seek the truth. God reveals Himself to those who seek Him and when it happens, no one can tell them anymore that they are here by any other way than a miraculous life-giving God who not only created all that we know but also created the natural laws under which we live.
It was JESUS, Who created the world. It was that SAME JESUS who submitted Himself to be born and linked to humanity a few thousand years later. It is that same Jesus who we expect to come in clouds of glory and take His people to a place called “Heaven” for 1000 years.
If one cannot believe those things – because they cannot be explained scientifically, then one is set for deception. (Jesus warned us about end time deceptions as well.) Scripture teaches that there will be an “anti-christ” deceiver in the last days. What happens if this anti-christ comes to various parts of the earth in UFOs or some other fantastic display? Entertainment media for recent decades have set this world up to accept deceptions that can be explained within scientific terms. Millions believe that our world is visited by creatures from other planets and they can easily accept the idea that we were somehow planted here long ago. They can reason that one of these UFOs could be described as a “cloud”. Even the sign that “every eye shall see him” can be explained as TV images beamed around the world.
Maybe it will not be exactly that way. But whatever way the deception presents itself, it will be powerful enough that it will be accepted by the “whole world” with the exception of a few who have studied enough to recognize the deception when it comes.
With so many advances of “science” and technology in the world today, we are primed for supernatural manifestations that will deceive many. It will be powerful. Sound like a conspiracy theory? Well there is a conspiracy:
Isaiah 14:
12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
The SDA faith is about recognizing the end days and teaching anyone else who will listen, the same. IT is about taking the scripture for what it teaches and refuting ideas that undermine the Bible by dismissing them as “…beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths…” (quote from Clergy Letter Project)
The SDA faith was founded at the prompting of divine inspiration to bring a final warning to the world. Jesus personally and also through his prophet “John” (in Revelation) indicated that there would be a voice in the end times giving the final warning. That is the mission of the SDA church. Anything else we do is a supporting role to that mission. Our medical work, universities, and churches world-wide have that reason for existence.
AND, part of that message is to proclaim in advance about the nature of the deceptions that will preceed that coming.
We approach the culmination of that great battle – or war – by rebel Lucifer against Jesus. We are in the final times of “The Great Controversy”. That is what the SDA faith is all about and the idea of evolution having anything to do with our existence is contrary to that mission.
The world is full of those who believe in evolution of some form. But truth is not a matter of a vote.
What else is there to say?
I take this forum to be a discussion as to whether or not evolution in some form could be taught as truth (labeled “scientiic” or “religious”) in SDA schools. Why would we? It is adverse and absolutely contrary to our belief in what we KNOW to be truth!
Charles(Quote)
View CommentYes, it’s clear that millions of Christians accept theistic evolution but remain devoted to the Bible. However, as Seventh-day Adventists, we know from 3SG 90-91 (and possibly 3SG 92-94; still waiting for Bob to clarify) that such Christians are outright liars in their proclaimed belief in the Bible.
You see, 3SG 91-92 makes clear the following:
1. TE’s exist (a very important point we are indebted to Bob for pointing out this very important point).
2. TE is the worst form of infidelity known to both humankind and heavenkind.
3. Higher critical reasoning upon reading 3SG 90-91 demands that theistic evolution cannot be wed to the Bible, which even Provine, Darwin, Patterson, Dawkins, Pitman, Ryan, and Nixon all agree with. What this apparently means is that if you believe in evolution, you cannot believe in the Bible. Period. End of story.
4. FB#6 needs to be radically changed to embrace and hopefully actually quote 3SG 90-91.
5. Withought 3SG 90-91, there is no basis for original sin, Jesus’ death, and salvation. In essence, without 3SG 90-91, the Seventh-day Adventist Church would not be distinct from other Churches.
6. La Sierra University is wholeheartedly sold on theistic evolution. The entire biology and religion departments, the entire administration, and entire board need to be fired. The local conference and union officials need to be fired for not making LSU subservient to 3SG 90-91. The NAD Education Department officials need to be fired, along with many of the GC officials, for their failure to reign in the all-for-evolution indoctrination at LSU. Of course, Ted Wilson cannot be fired, because someone has to fire all those beneath him.
7. By-faith-only belief in “reptiles-to-birds” must hereafter be considered happy fiction storytelling.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentAnd of course this is likely to be well received by Kent “the creationist”.
Wonder how long he will be posting…
Hmm Kent “the creationist” seems to be fading out again. How “unnexpected”.
1. “TE’s exist” is the old Kent defense for “so the TE doctrine cannot be such a bad idea”. Seems to be coming back “again” in Kent’s text.
The continual “millions of TE’s exist” reminder as a defense for TE is from the pre Kent “the Creationist” era.
so sad to see Kent “the creationist” leaving.
Spin doctoring and fallacy there is that the actual Creationist argument has never been that TE’s “do not exist” so “by definition” we have Christian TE’s “claiming” to accept the bible all the while embracing the self-conflicted idea of trying to marry the bible to by-faith-alone evolutionism.
Perhaps we could hear some more on this from Kent “The creationist” whenever he regains control of the posting process.
Oh no wait!! apparently Kent “The creationist” did manage to get a word in that prior post…he said.
Wow – a true statement with no spin in it was left in that prior post by Kent!
Well again I applaud the work of Kent “the creationist” in at least getting the truth into a tiny section of that post “unspun”.
Well done!
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentSomebody needs to e-mail Dr. Zimmerman the text from 3SG 90-91, and maybe even 3SG 92-94, so that his inquiring mind will employ higher critical reasoning to realize that marrying evolution with Bible is harder than threading a needle through a polonium halo.
Eddie(Quote)
View CommentCorrection – somebody needs to disabuse any SDA who may be attracted to the idea of promoting Zimmerman’s TE doctrines on origins – by sending such a person the text of 3SG 90-94.
Why should SDAs claim to be as befuddled as some of the non-SDA TE’s on this point?
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentIs there such a thing as a SDA TE? According to 3SG 90-91, there can’t be.
Eddie(Quote)
View CommentAs Eddie makes clear, Bob Ryan has made clear that 3SG 90-91 makes clear that there is no such thing as an SDA TE?
For some odd reason, Cliff Goldstein is prone to write about “Seventh-day Darwinians,” which of course do not exist, so it might also be good to disabuse him by sending him the text of 3SG 90-94 (not sure what’s in 92-94, but Bob seems insistent this is very important).
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentI’ll show my ignorance.
Just what is 3SG-90-94?
Sounds like a SOP referrence but I am not sure.
Charles(Quote)
View Comment@Charles:
Spiritual Gifts Volume 3 – pages 90-94.
Click here to see the chapter –
http://egwdatabase.whiteestate.org/nxt/gateway.dll/egw-comp/section00000.htm/book05137.htm/chapter05149.htm
Obviously some here are referencing this inspired text merely to mock it and those who might dare to read it and take it seriously.
But in so doing they are merely giving the reader another “clue†as to how important it is to actually listen to a message that God gives on this very topic.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentI’ll let Bob explain. Perhaps he can do so without mention of my name or my supposed views, or Charles Darwin’s or Richard Dawkins’ name. Actually, I’m thinking that much of it is in Patriarchs and Prophets, but as a few insiders here recognize by now, Bob seems to really like the zing of 3SG 90-91 (and more recently 3SG 90-94).
It’s very important stuff. “Don’t leave home without it.”
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentUnderstatement! Bob should quote the entire text, not just from 3SG 90-91 but also 3SG 92-94, because SDAs should spend more time reading from SOP than Dr. Seuss. Inquiring minds want to know!!!
Eddie(Quote)
View CommentGood point Ron.
Because our pastors are are not content to merely “mock” the 4th commandment or 3SG 90-94 (Spiritual Gifts Volume 3 – pages 90-94) as some are doing here, but are inclined to read and accept it, they are less inclinded to TE than the pastors of denominations that do not take the 4th commandment seriously as it summarizes the “Account” of creation found in Gen 1:2-2:3.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentBob is right. 3SG 90-94 is very important and should not be mocked. The only ones who can be mocked are the TE’s, as 3SG 90-94 tells us that they are lying when they insist they believe in the Bible. Anyone who believes in TE cannot be SDA or even Christian. All true SDAs must be willing to point out sin as sin and tell all TEs their, proclaiming 3SG 90-94 to the ends of the earth. The point remains.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentAs Ellen White put it:
And so I ask, in rhyme:
Do we have the courage to wage war
with the message of 3SG 90-94?
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentPrinted 3SG 90-94. I will read it tonight.
Charles(Quote)
View CommentThe text is so clear that it would be shocking if even one SDA would then suggest that TE be taught at any of our schools after having read that statement.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentYou seem to forget your own words: if someone believes in TE or suggests that TE should be taught at our schools, they are not an SDA. They cannot be. Just ask Cliff Goldstein about this. Thus, your post is nonsensical by your own critical higher reasoning.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentI read the chapter and found it to be outstanding. Nothing about it changed anything that I have believed since (as a child) I had the capacity to reach my own conclusions.
I suppose one could question whether or not Ellen White was inspired? What she wrote is clear. Here is how it begins:
I was then carried back to the creation and was shown that the first week, in which God performed the work of creation in six days and rested on the seventh day, was just like every other week.
She represents to us that God has given her a vision and this is what she saw. Either she is telling the truth or she is a fraud (as many would suggest). I have studied what she wrote for decades along side the scriptures that she embraced and I am wholly persuaded of the truthfulness and accuracy of the messages that she delivered to the SDA church.
The arguments on this board about TE or AE existing – how can one respond? Maybe there is not clarity in the definiition of what “evolution” means? I have always understood “evolution” to mean that something naturally evolves from lower forms of life to higher forms. LIKE, bugs evolve to mice (over much time) and mice evolve to something else – say a cat and so on until we have a human. We all know that there are adaptations to environments – an ability that life has to make the adjustments needed to survive. I have never seen that as an evolutionary process.
In the article from Spiritual Gifts, vol 3, Ellen white cleary refutes “evolution” as meant by the understanding that I have had of the word. In fact, to the contrary, she describes a sort of “devolution” or “degeneration” in which the original perfection and vitality of God’s creation has been lost due to the entrance of sin. The view presented in the article is very consistent with the scriptural accounts as well.
I believe the reality to be that there is really just one organization of any substance left in this world that has the correct view of how we (and everything we know) came to be here. It is the SDA church. Most of the other “churches” have embraced other ideas – as evidenced by the “Clergy Letter Project” and the thousands of “Christian” signatories affixed thereto.
If the story of “The Great Controversy” is true, then it only makes sense that Satan will be attacking that organization with all ferver and zeal. I believe this to be the case.
The purity of the SDA message is at stake and under attack. But this is not a battle that we as individuals must wage. Pray daily for the work of God’s last-day remnant church and watch the miracles of his protection unfold. Loving persuasion and prayer is the way of effective witness.
Let us all pray for each other.
Charles(Quote)
View CommentIn the post above, I attempted to put her quote (only the first bold paragraph) into bold to make it stand out. I did close the “bold” html but the system did not include it. I don’t know how to edit my post so I am just explaining what happened in a second post. I should have just used quote marks, I guess.
Charles(Quote)
View CommentCharles – sadly the edit feature has been disabled from this discussion board.
For bold text use
closed with
(and of course no spaces in those html tags )
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentCharles – thank you for your comments.
It is often pointed out (by me) that on those few pages Ellen White refers to Theistic evolution (not merely atheist evolution) as the “worst form of infidelity” – because it is infidelity in disguise.. in the disguise of someone who claims to believe the Bible and be a Christian and yet is marrying the Bible to blind faith in evolutionism.
The warning then against TE is not merely the warning that Evolution contradicts the Bible – it is also that promoting evolution as a Christian is a disguised form of infidelity – which makes it he worst kind according to the text of 3SG 90-91.
That is a huge warning!
The response we have been getting at EducateTruth from those wanting to “big-tent” evolution into the SDA context is “yes but TEs exist” in a kind of nonsensical “to accept Ellen White’s statement is to deny that there is such a thing as a TE that exists”.
I just keep pointing out that each time they go there – they are making an argument that has no actual logic to it – rather it has “emotion”. The emotion they appeal to is in regard to “all those TEs” that we do not want risk “feeling less than” by the statements that you find in 3SG 90-91.
For some reason Kent and Eddie think that is a compelling argument.
And by contrast – I think it merely exposes the weakness of their “defense by appeal to emotion not logic” solution to the problem.
Apparently both sides are happy with that ending state as they keep going back to it – so all is well.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentKent – I never meant to say that they do not “exist”. I am merely pointing out that there is such a thing as the voted beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and that being a Catholic for example and yet placing an SDA hat on your head – would not make you an SDA in terms of beliefs.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentI think it would be more intersting if the conversation steered away from 3SG 90-91.
Shane Hilde(Quote)
View CommentWhat? How could you possibly suggest this? What else would Bob have to write about?
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentI just checked the news. No earthquakes, tornados, hurricanes, tidal waves that were worth mentioning. Just a few wars and rumours of wars.
Guess it was just a quiet day – unusual this near the second coming of Jesus.
Charles(Quote)
View CommentHappy Sabbath, again. The last day of another week – just as it has been since the week of Creation.
Charles(Quote)
View CommentAmen!
(But as David Bee points out – to some TE’s out there – that is all just “myth” — and not the Word of God).
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentBobRyan: The text is so clear that it would be shocking if even one SDA would then suggest that TE be taught at any of our schools after having read that statement.
How could we ever forget your “TE’s exist” solution along with your “SDA TE’s exist” solution to the problem cited as if that argues for big-tenting-TE because “TE’s exist”.
I think most SDAs will find Ellen White’s statement on that point a little more convincing than our ‘yes but TEs exist’ – non-answer for the problem.
But to each his own.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentBobRyan said: Zimmerman’s campaign points to the deep confusion among various Christian denominations when it comes to whether or not they should actually believe the Bible if it contradicts classic atheist evolutionism.
That is true – TE’s do exist. That must why Ellen White addressed the issue.
Just stating the obvious.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentThat quote serves two main purposes.
1. It is the primary response to the “let’s big tent TE inside Adventism” theme that some have been promoting. (And as a few have pointed out here – not ALL SDAs are aware of what that text even says).
2. It shows full agreement with Darwin, Dawkins and others on the obvious point that the Bible cannot be married to evolution. David Bee has made it very clear on this board that the “solution” for marrying evolution to the Bible is to declare the Bible to be nothing more than myth. He is making the same 3SG 90-94 case only in the negative.
What it does not do is evaluate the junk-science nature of the claims for evolution. So the science gaffs, blunders and hoaxes put forward on behalf of evolution will come up.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentI am missing my agnostic friend, Ken.
I hope he read the chapter. He promised.
Charles(Quote)
View CommentThis is encouraging, IMO.
However, the survey of students probably presents a more favorable picture than is realistic, since a significant percentage of the students may not even know what the Adventist position on creation is — considering the kinds of homes they are coming from. But even if they all knew, a 50% rate of believing that SDA views were presented is pretty dismal. That’s a failing grade, after all ..
Inge Anderson(Quote)
View CommentMost, if not all, countries legislate morality. In regard to alcohol Ellen White said:
I don’t see anything wrong with legislating morality. What shouldn’t be legislated are laws that have to do with our freedom to worship (or not to worship) our God as we see fit. Ultimately, legislated morality doesn’t really change anyone, but it has its purpose.
I’m sure you support the government prohibiting/punishing stealing, murder, adultery, lying under oath, and sex with minors. There are others.
There is no mandate to impose all our beliefs on the public, but in regards to morality it, why not?
Shane Hilde(Quote)
View CommentIsn’t it time for Wisby to go for failure to lead, failure to admit that LSU did wrong without a ton of external pressure, failure to make the changes that were needed without being forced to, failure to protect student’s academic freedom, failure to proactively support the church’s beliefs?
Are we naive? Do we think that this problem is really solved? This is the tip of the iceberg! Do we think that Gary Bradley and Lee Greer have suddenly had an epiphany and are going to fall in line behind this decision?
What about the religion department? Are they not to blame for much of this problem and maybe even more so than the biology department? Shouldn’t they have been the first to send up the red flag that something was wrong in what was being taught to our students? They are just as guilty, or more guilty for what is happening here than the biology department. Let’s not forget that the FB on creation and origins is not the only areas where our professors are off base. What about the recent push from religion professors at LSU (and LLU for that matter) and Christy Oberg at LSU University Church to push for homosexual marriage in California? Our FB says we believe in marriage between one man and one woman.
What about our FB on the Investigative Judgement? I would predict that we would find very few at LSU that support that FB. LSU’s smorgasbord Adventism where one can pick and choose which belief you like and which one you don’t like stinks. It is time for ACCOUNTABILITY. We need a bunch of new faculty and administrators at LSU and start over with a clean slate. Let the ones that don’t agree with our beliefs move on to the local community college or university where their beliefs will be more in line with with is being taught there.
And Ricardo Graham needs to go too. He typifies SDA politics as usual. Gloss things over or sweep things under the rug. He should have been the first SDA administrator to do something definitive to fix this problem. This should have not had to go all the way to the GC. It should have stopped with the Pacific Union Conference.
D. Fender(Quote)
View Comment