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.
Prof Kent, in more recent times the rest of society was in step with the church and agreed that marriage was between one man and one woman. Society has had a moral framework that followed much of the 10 commandments and the Christian religion. Society has been changing, and not for the good. Society at large is moving towards destruction at a lightning speed. Are we going to be a force for good and moral behavior, or sit by passively and let it all go to hell, literally?! I prefer to be salt as Jesus described us, and give some good flavor. I believe judgement is coming for those who sit passively by and let it happen, and even worse for those who help usher in evil.
D. Fender(Quote)
View CommentThis issue is off topic though, so if you’d like to continue discussing it, you can email me.
Shane Hilde(Quote)
View CommentShane pointed out what may be crucial in forcing LSU to choose it’s allegiance. Since Wisbey has pledged the administration and the board will “resist efforts that would compromise academic freedom and institutional autonomy” how can AAA’s requirements be met? Which one will LSU oblige? Wisbey has committed the school to an impossible dilemma. With WASC reevaluating, at any time now (if not already) the answer may be forthcoming quite soon.
Susie(Quote)
View CommentWow, the accrediting visit has borne fruit. How could LSU have so blatantly misinterpreted the results of the visit? Did the AAA change its report after initially approving the campus or did LSU make up the story about a favorable result?
Without naming you [Sean] and Shane, it certainly seems like your work is being recognized. Pity it took such an effort to bring this ugly state to the attention of the decision makers. Thanks to you and Shane for your unflagging and valiant efforts. I am pretty sure it is not over by a long shot, but at least the flow has been temporarily staunched. Thank you.
Art
Arthur Chadwick(Quote)
View Comment@Arthur Chadwick: Remember LSU pulled its initial post of AAA findings.
AAA’s final report was submitted to Wisbey February 1, 2011. Seven days later LSU president Randal Wisbey published AAA’s findings, but without any of AAA’s observations regarding the biology faculty. The next day, the committee submitted their memorandum to the LSU Board. A month later LSU publishes the committee’s memorandum along with an open letter from Wisbey and Ricardo Graham. Then the Adventist Review reported, “La Sierra announced the team’s findings online on February 8, but has since removed the statement from the university’s website.” A copy of the report can be read by clicking here. It is unknown why Wisbey published the AAA findings, along with the visiting team’s names, and then, without explanation, abruptly pulled the report from LSU’s website when the committee’s memorandum was published.
Something fishy was going on perhaps.
Shane Hilde(Quote)
View CommentDoes our FB say that we believe it’s imperative to IMPOSE our belief on ALL citizens? We have many FBs that we do not insist must be enforced by law, so why should the Church take a stand on this particular one?
I always understood that neither Ellen White nor our Church have support legislated morality. You can say, “it’s best for our children,” and I couldn’t agree more. But outlawing alcohol and tobacco and divorce, and requiring the teaching of the 10 commandments and creation in our public schools, would also be good for our students (among many other moral behaviors that could be legislated).
What you are insisting on, no matter how you spin it, is legislated morality. And you and Ron Stone not only demand it of our Church, but publicly chastise anyone who disagrees with your position. I realize the Church has presently taken a stand on this position, but there are MANY in the Church who recognize the hypocrisy. Are we going to support legislated morality, or eschew it?
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentYou’re absolutely correct, Dave. Most of the “underlings” are either afraid to do anything or simply are waiting for someone “higher up” to take charge of this debacle.
Ron Stone M.D.(Quote)
View CommentNearly two years seems like a long time to rectify matters. But I rejoice at this action by AAA.
Bob Pickle(Quote)
View CommentNone of this top down pressure would be happening were it not for the fact that Ted Wilson is the General Conference President (and is on the AAA board).
There really is a new sheriff in town. But is it too late?
David Read(Quote)
View CommentI predict that “recanting” and “humbly reforming” will not occur with anyone at LSU.
Why should they? No one has even asked whether that should be done or not. No pressure is being exerted by anyone to actually “reform” or change anything except some students “perceptions.”
Suppose LSU does another “survey” and the results show even a slight downturn in the number or percentage of students having a negative perception. Will we all be celebrating some type of “victory?” I certainly won’t be!
Ron Stone M.D.(Quote)
View CommentMy reaction to this report is that LSU will make some minor “adjustments” as Graham mentioned before and nothing of any substance will actually be changed. I hope I am wrong.
Ron Stone M.D.(Quote)
View CommentBeardsley says quote: “This was a challenging and complex decision.” If that isn’t hyperbole I have never seen it. What’s so complex about following Scripture as reflected in SDA beliefs?
In my personal view it’s now time to select a new university President and maybe even a new GC Educational Director. As we have clearly seen in the past too often certain ones circle the wagons and try to deny anything of substance has ever happened.
While I applaud the progress that has been made I’m not at all certain that the future will show substantive improvement. The problem has festered long enough and should be corrected before the next teaching cycle begins.
GMF(Quote)
View CommentDebbie Rockwell, I have yet to hear anyone in administration say that “or remove those unwilling to teach it?”. As far as I’m concerned, this process is SDA politics as usual until someone either PUBLICALLY recants their views that are in conflict with the church and humbly reforms, or they leave. We are bad at holding people accountable and gloss over issues and think we have done God’s will. God and many church members know the evil that is swept under the rug. We are corporately responsible for not doing good and for overlooking bad.
D. Fender(Quote)
View CommentNope – I think we were clear on that point.
BobRyan(Quote)
View Comment1. take a miracle. Would be disruptive and revolutionary NOT merely evolutionary.
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentRe Bob’s Quote
“The highly objective historical-grammatical method of “interpreting text” is valid not only with the Bible but with any text.”
Thanks Bob
Rhetorically, would this mean that all Christian denominations that use the HG method come to objective conclusions. What separates the Adventist wheat from the chaff in this respect? The prophecy of EGW?
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View CommentThe fundamental “problem” with LSU is not a few evolutionary biologists, but a slow deterioration of our SDA biblical beliefs, both initiated and supported by the so-called leaders that the Board has chosen–Fritz Guy, Lawrence Geraty, and Randall Wisbey, over the past several decades!
And the Board, ultimately, has to admit to the blame and thus “correct” the problem. Will they?
I say “No.” Why? They are themselves supportive of this deterioration, at least the majority. How else could this situation have gotten to this serious a level?
Ron Stone M.D.(Quote)
View CommentAnd that is where a miracle is needed.
The horse is now out of the barn and those who let it out are still at the barn-door holding it open.
Some of them may be convicted that they made a mistake – while others may simply be infavor of that mistake. In both cases they know that getting the horse back into the barn would
1. take a miracle. Would be disruptive and revolutionary merely evolutionary.
2. And it would be admitting publically to a huge mistake on their part. Both costly and painful to fix.
So both groups have a natural inclination to simply sit this one out and let nature take its course rather than admit to being in gross error. Which means more lip service and still no real substantive change.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentIndeed – we both saw that you were talking about looking at the family radio web site and I was talking about that pastor using this as an opportunity to have a serious of meetings on the subject.
That was the easy part.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentThis story has been out there since last year when the nation-wide Family Radio followers of Harold Camping began touring America with vans painted up with “Judgment Day” signage.
This has been a wonderful opportunity to find friends and neighbors suddenly interested in talking about the coming judgment and looking for bible evidence of the same.
As Seventh-day Adventists this is a perfect lead-in to the “real truth about Judgment day”.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentThe H-G method is a tool for achieving objectivity in spite of prior bias. However we are all human and many Christians today come to the Bible with a predetermined set of beliefs.
The Early Adventists (Millerites) came to the Bible with various doctrinal backgrounds. (Methodist, Baptist, Catholic, agnostic) etc.
They did not instantly come to the same conclusion on all doctrines but (as might be expected) they started out in agreement in one specific area and over time scoped out agreement on additional doctrines.
Having Christians of various backgrounds united on one point (prophetic use of the day-year principle and the 2300 year timeline) and then hammering out doctrinal positions over a 50 year perior of time – has always resulted in large strides forward in Christian history – each time a group has dared to come together and do it.
That was true for Luther and for Wesley.
Adventists engaged in the same process but with the added help of supernatural messages coming directly from God as they conducted their Bible studies.
At no point did Ellen White introduced any of the stated doctrines – but once they were reached she reported God’s approval which immediately clarified the gray areas and the temptation to go back to that conclusion and bend or tweak it with another person’s ideas.
That was a big help that other groups did not have.
Another big help was that when they would reach an empass – on a given doctrine stuck between two apparently great options – Ellen White would be given a message from God selecing the right fork in the road.
Another bit advantage not enjoyed by those groups that engaged in that exercise in prior ages.
The result was a doctrinal foundation that had the stamp of approval from God right down to the very name chosen for the group.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentHmm, I see Professor Kent’s URL leads to the same I’ve given.
Eddie(Quote)
View CommentI learned of it for the first time last evening…from the CNN.com story.
I want to check their website Saturday evening to learn their explanation for the absence of the massive 6 pm earthquake that is supposed to move approximately 1 time zone per hour from New Zealand, where it is to begin (as I recall). That–and why they are still on this planet and able to access their website. Should be amusing to say the least!
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentBut it’s okay to mock SDAs whose theology you think is dubious?
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentThe chart by Sebastian Adams (referenced in previous post) puts the creation at 4004 BC. I have been a bit dubious that the age of the earth can be determined that precisely. The chart is a work of syncronization of Biblical and Historical records.
I see nothing to indicate that there is any precision in the idea of spending six milleniums upon this earth under sin. I do see some validity in the idea of “God’s Great Week of Time” – six thousand years of labor under sin followed by a one thousand year period in Heaven where mankind is reconciled to a face to face relationship with his Creator. (a great “Sabbath” of sorts) And of course we KNOW that the 1000 year period begins immenently.
Charts constructed to determine the age of the earth must be based in part on the given age of Adam from the Genesis account. What is unknown is Adam’s age when he and Eve fell by committing the sin. If, indeed, exactly six milleniums should pass for the earth to fully ripen in it’s rebellion against the Creator, we still cannot determine so much as even which year that would happen.
AND,
Clearly, God does not wish us to try to make that determination – although He HAS given us abundant signals and signs to know that it is near. Simply look at the earth today, compared to 20 years ago! Or 100 years ago! How much longer can it last?
In the parable of the ten virgins, Jesus gave us His best advice – that is to keep our lamps (Lamp = His word) filled with OIL and burning (Holy Spirit) in order to be ready for that day. When the BrideGroom came, it was time to go NOW – not time to get ready.
NOW is the time to cultivate that experiential familiarity with the Holy Spirit – who speaks to us in a “still small voice”.
To Ken, my agnostic friend: It it good to know that you are at least an “agnostic” rather than an athiest. I urge you, plead with you to simply do one thing: Pray to God, your Creator and ask for something. But when you do, make a committment to go with the request – that is that when you know Him you will accept Him as your Creator and will embrace His will for your life. This is not something to fear but to embrace. When you have an experiential relationship with your Creator, you will have no doubt whatsoever about how you came to be here or where you will go from here.
How could I put it any differently?
Hebrews 11:6
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Charles(Quote)
View CommentMore editing —
Who knows – but I do know that we should not join with the atheists in mocking judgment day EVEN when the subject is brought up under such dubious claims as Camping has assembled.
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentThe 2011 prediction has been out there for many years. I first heard about it on Family Radio in 2005. The details about the calculations are here:
http://www.familyradio.com/index2.html
Eddie(Quote)
View CommentKen,
My expressions to you were genuine, absolutely.
I sorrow for a world who knows not their Creator. Too many will be “lost”. The Creator and Savior of the world wishes not one of humanity be lost.
I know little of Harold Camping except what I have heard in the last 4 or 5 days. His message was not consistent with scripture. My prayer for him would be that he come to know his Creator.
Believe it or not, scripture – though written over a period of more than one and a half millenea – by something like 35 writers, is consistent from beginning to end. “To the law and to the testamony, if they speak not according to his word, there is NO LIGHT in them.”
Most of “Christianity” today is not consistent with scripture. It is part of the deception of the Creator’s enemy. There is but one truth and falsehoods are in abundance.
Your presence in this forum is a good sign. I will pray for you.
Charles(Quote)
View CommentI can’t think of better evidence that God is for real.
Amen.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentThe earth is about 6000 years old according to 3SG 90-91 where we are told that belief in evolutionism destroys faith in the accuracy of the Bible and belief in God. (Ellen White reports that calls Theistic Evolutionism the worst form of infidelity at that point)
But in that statement Ellen White specifically states that Earth with Life on it — is the context for the statement.
It is clear that Ellen White is talking about creation week itself being 6000 years ago.
She does not speak to a seperate creation of the earth rocks as another creation, so it is not out of reason to admit to the basic fact that she was shown that creation week occurred about 6000 years ago and that this is the time at which all life on earth was created.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentJUDGMENT DAY – THIS COMING SABBATH!
Apparently, this Sabbath is THE day. A large group of Christians, organized by FAMILY RADIO in California, has calculated from scripture that a massive worldwide earthquake will occur on this day that will throw open all graves–at 6:00 pm local time. The remains of the all the believers who have ever lived will be instantly transformed into glorified spiritual bodies to be forever with God. The bodies of all unsaved people will be thrown out upon the ground to be shamed.
The inhabitants who survive this terrible earthquake will exist in a world of horror and chaos beyond description. Each day people will die until October 21, 2011 when God will completely destroy this earth and its surviving inhabitants.
Here’s a great quote: “For one to object to May 21st, 2011 one must have BIBLICAL AUTHORITY to do so. Objections cannot be based upon consensus, traditions or fear. God has given far too many biblical proofs for anyone to disregard May 21 simply because he or she does not like it.” Anyone here got “Biblical authority?” And…if you have not studied it, then how can you refute it?
DETAILS: http://bit.ly/hspDJM
STORY: http://bit.ly/mRk5Es (very compelling)
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentI saw a source the other day stating that Usher placed creation at Oct 22, 4004 BC.
His claim that the 7 days of creation week dictate that the earth is to be destroyed on the 7000th year. (Which of course it may well be – in Rev 20 – at the end of the 6th 1000 year time period).
But that will be a thousand years too late for the 2nd coming.
The other interesting note here is that some of the atheist/agnostic groups plan to party this weekend celebrating judgment failure day.
Just as they partied at the time of Gen 6 and 7 for seven days before the rain fell.
Well then – it makes one wonder about Fri-Sat May 27, 28. Does Satan plan to do a mock-echo of Genesis 7 with a local crisis on that day?
Would God allow it?
Who knows – but I do not we should not join with the atheists in mocking judgment day EVEN when the subject is brought up under such dubious claims as Camping has assembled.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentEnd of the World –
It is coming but the group teaching about tomorrow do not have Biblical facts straight.
Camping has the flood dated at 4990 BC and thus placing us at about 7000 years since the flood. The earth is about 6000 years old from the Creation (ahem, my agnostic friend, Ken. The earth is simply not so very old.) One of the best compilations of historical / Biblical information to determine the age of the earth, was an enormous chart (about 25′ long) that was worked on for many years by a man named Sebastian Adams and completed in 1878. Adams places the Flood at 2348 BC and I suspect that is fairly accurate. He places the Creation at 4004 BC.
I think such activity is invented by Satan to cast doubt upon the real event as it draws near. Time after time when predicted dates come and go, mankinds general skepticism grows – just what Satan wants.
Jesus gave us the signs to watch for and told us to watch. He also told us that he would come at such a time as we think not… AND that we “know not the hour”…
The message is that it is soon. It was “soon” 166 years ago and today we are 166 years closer than we were then. The signs are clear about the nearness of the coming and Herold Camping is one of the signs, I’d guess.
Charles(Quote)
View CommentClearly? I wasn’t referring to the youtube website. I was referring to the Family Radio website in response to the prior two posts by Eddie. Or did you divine my reaction to a website I haven’t visited yet?
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentAside from a bit of misdirection here and there trying to spin what someone else says to the extreme – what is your actual theology??
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentCharles, I give you an example of “ridicule and abuse:”
I simply stated that there are millions of Christians who accept theistic evolution, yet still believe in the Bible, and that anyone accusing all of these Christians of rejecting the Bible is delusional. I said “delusional,” not “evil;” there is a big difference. And I will repeat the word again: delusional.
Have you not read Bob Ryan’s many posts? How could you characterize them as anything other than ridicule and abuse?
Yes, I am truly a believer in the SDA faith, and I most certainly do believe in the literal creation. If you have read my posts, you would surely recognize this.
PK
Professing Christ until the whole world hears
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentKen –
You seem like an honest and good person. I wish you were my next door neighbor so that we could sit on my front porch and visit. (I have an awesome place in the country with a huge front porch and rocking chairs).
I would like to ask you something. For the sake of my question, lets assume that there was actually a cataclysmic event on earth about 4300 years ago that destroyed the earth as it had existed prior to that event. I’ll call that event “the flood”. Please humor me in this.
According to the story, the man “Noah” knew about this flood for 120 years before it happened. He was pretty much a lone man with his message and was doing a thing that from a logical (or “scientific”) perspective could only be described as “crazy”. He was building a huge boat on dry land – far from any sizable body of water. As he built, he explained to anyone who would listen that the world was going to be destroyed and that anyone who would just get on the boat, would survive.
No need to go on with the story – as I am sure that you can see where it is headed.
What if YOU had been Noah? What if you were 100% sure of your message – as he was?
What could have happened to Noah that would have set him on a 120 year course to proclaim an event that seemed as far-fetched as anything anyone could imagine? Noah knew (still – assuming the story is true) what he was talking about. He KNEW. But practically no one would listen – especially after 120 years of just talking about it.
So here is my question: IF you had absolute knowledge of some huge devastating event (anything you could imagine), what would you do for those you love and care for, to warn them or persuade them to take an action to put them at safety from that event? What could one do to persuade? How would you feel when they just look back at you with an “understanding” smile?
Even if you don’t accept that the universal flood story from scripture is true, I ask you to put yourself in a similar place as IF it were, and describe what you would do to bring the ones you love to safety.
Your believer friend
Charles
Charles(Quote)
View CommentA serious of meetings??
(That was funny 😉 )
A series of meetings.
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentDear Charles
Thank you for your concern about my welfare. I respect that.
However, I suggest your prayers would be better appllied towards poor, misguided Harold Camping and his followers today. Hard to imagine the depth of despair and spiritual confusion they must be going through about now. They are going to need a lot of support tomorrow.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View CommentDear Charles
I enjoyed your posts regarding the basis of the Adventist faith and miracullous creationism. No pretension and stating like it is. Laudable.
You are absolutely correct that the harsh treatment of some individuals on this site is improper. Believing different things does not make people bad, but their conduct can. As I have said before I consider myself to be the most apostate on this forum, but maybe the best treated. My treatment here says more to me about your faith and Christian charity than any one of the FBs.
I believe it is possible to challenge the very essence of what we believe, but with great respect and tolerance. The fact that conservative Adventists may be in the minority respecting the theory of origins does not lessen this requirement. But, with respect I think that conservative Adventists should not be demonizing others, especially of essentially the same subset- YEC/YEC, or else they risk being marginalized as irrational zealots. That I think will be anathema for the church if it trying to attract its youth.
As I watch my children mix with Christians, Muslims, Hindus, old insufferable agnostics like their father, etc. , with grace and tolerance, I think that this is the way Jesus would want to see us all behave. All of us are going to believe something slightly different – ex. YEC v. YLC- is this really a good reason for recrimination?
It has and is my great pleasure to participate with you all on this good forum. Let’s do it with good will and great things will happen.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View CommentYes, indeed. Tragic.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentAs you noted on another thread – you believe it is unchristian and apparently “evil” for anyone to agree with the 3SG 90-91 statement that T.E is in fact the worst form of infidelity.
Given that many SDAs are more inclined to agree that Ellen White was inspired in writing that statement – you surely see that there is going to be a “gap” between your view of this as “no big deal” and SDAs who accept Ellen White’s ministry seeing it as a “big deal indeed”.
And thus when we point out that Darwin was correct to point out that reason dictates you cannot accept belief in evolutionism and faith in the accuracy and trustworthy nature of the Bible, and so also does the inspired ministry of Ellen White affirm that same glaringly obvious observation – we are really just stating the obvious.
It is a principle that applies in general and is not a personal assault on any one person as though we had said “Well Fritz in YOUR case T.E. is the worst form of infidelity” as opposed to any other T.E in Adventism.
Just reading the text of 3SG 90-91 and accepting it as true and inspired, as well as admitting to the obvious logical conlusion of Darwin himself in this matter – is not an act of personal vindictiveness against Bradley or Fritz or John Smith.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentYou’re right: you saw it and I did not. That’s different, indeed. I tip my hat to your critical thinking.
Professor Kent(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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 CommentThis site used to allow editing – I don’t know why that is turned off now.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(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 CommentRe Charles Quote
“What if YOU had been Noah? What if you were 100% sure of your message – as he was?”
Hi Charles
I liked your hypothetical. Within its confines, if I was Noah and had 100% conviction then I would have been in the boat building business. All aboard! Glad it wasn’t Harold Camping at the tiller.
Wouldn’t it be great if we had Noah’s first hand account to assess. I have done quite a bit of reading on the Epic of Gilamesh, which I understand preceded the Noachian, biblical account. Interesting similarities. The scientific consensus seems to be that there was a large local flood in that part of the world as well, which may mean the basis for the stories are not just mythological or apocryphal.
Did someone survive on a boat with animals and pass on their epic story? Did the story morph into legend with the retelling and embellishment? Those are all plausible possibilities.
Love to sit on your front porch someday and share a lemonade.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Ken(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 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 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 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 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 CommentHere is an example of an SDA Pastor with the right idea about sharing the Gospel through the open door provided by the sudden up-tick in interest in Judgment day this week.
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentJesus tells us to be aware of the times in Matt 24 and not to be asleep at the wheel that the day should overtake you as a theif.
I think the Camping fiasco is designed to get people to ignore Bible prophecy when it comes to end times for “fear” of being labeled with Harold Camping’s group.
It is interesting that in the 1800’s before there was Ellen White – there was Joseph Smith – perfectly designed to get people biased against anything at all like a modern day claim to visions and dreams.
History repeats itself.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentCharles, I was under the impression that most SDAs do not believe the earth to be only 6,000 years old, in spite of what Ellen White says in 3SG90-91.
I think you’re absolutely right. Excellent point.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentClearly we see two entirely different uses for this upcoming event.
in Christ,
Bob
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 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 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 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 CommentIs there such a thing as a SDA TE? According to 3SG 90-91, there can’t be.
Eddie(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 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 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 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 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’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 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 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 CommentWhat? How could you possibly suggest this? What else would Bob have to write about?
Professor Kent(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 CommentI think it would be more intersting if the conversation steered away from 3SG 90-91.
Shane Hilde(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 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 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 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 CommentPrinted 3SG 90-94. I will read it tonight.
Charles(Quote)
View CommentAnd Lydian, if you know of candidates who might be considered, tell them to apply. I personally would like to see the positions filled, and with Godly biologists at that. (And I’m sorry that in my prior post I ended three sentences in a row with “right now.”)
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentInside information, to be taken with no more than a grain of salt if it causes high blood pressure.
Eddie(Quote)
View CommentD Fender
“If those that believe that evolution is the explanation to our origins…”
Good comments, I’d like to add a few:
For the astute member who has faithfully studied the purpose of our church and the events related to its founding, these events (apostasy in the church) are a signal of end times. Add the events of the world – the increasing “birth pains” – both in frequency and intensity – and one may clearly see the unfolding of the inspired words of Ellen G White. Yes, I said it – “Ellen G White”. Is her name unmentionable anymore?
She was a prophet that God raised up to be a core component of the founding of this church. Our very reason for existence is to proclaim the three angel’s messages to the world. What are those messages?
1. Worship God as Creator.
2. Expose Babylon.
3. Clearly warn the world of impending doom.
Jesus said of his second coming that it would be like the days of Noah: While Noah was in the boat with his family, the world partied and ridiculed outside – oblivious to the impending doom.
We KNOW that when Jesus comes and takes His redeemed home with him, the earth will be left desolate of any human life. Thats what happened in Noah’s day. But this is not the message of any form of evolution theory. Those ideas all point to a continued march toward God-hood under the banner of His enemy – Satan.
I am not pointing fingers at anyone without having three pointed back at myself. But what are we doing to finish this work? Building a retirement plan? A big new school? A mega-chain of hospitals?
Ellen White wrote more than a hundred years ago, “We could have been in the kingdom long er this…” So why are we not there? There will come a time when the end will happen. I believe this time is very close (according to the signs) and long-term planning is wasted time. Many will leave the church but many more will come in – according to EGW.
If I had lived in Noah’s day and understood the impending flood, how would I have related to those I love? Would I casually walk up the steps into the boat and wave bye? Or would I have desperately pled with them to come with me? We are in the same circumstance today. The world, as we know it, is about to end. Is there someone we love who needs to be persuaded to have their lamps filled with the sweet oil of God’s Holy Spirit?
The end will come soon. The way we are going at the work that God gave us to do, I think the angels are going to have to join in to get it finished.
Lets pray for each other.
Charles(Quote)
View CommentRe David’s Quote
“Instead of looking for creationist biologists, they could hire any biologist with the understanding that they are to teach facts only, and not speculate about origins. Then for the creation v. evolution part, they could just bring in lawyers, who are trained to argue and, more importantly, to separate fact from assumption. There’s no need to ask scientists to argue about origins when they are typically abysmally unqualified for the task.”
Hi David
That is an interesting perspective.
How do you see it working? Would you bring in lawyers arguing from different perspectives or just Adventist lawyers? Would you as a lawyer be prepared to argue for evolution for the sake of objectivity?
Just curious
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View CommentDoes anyone really believe that the current leadership and faculty at LSU will–or even can–(or even want) to change things as LSU? Can a leopard change his spots?
It appears to me that the leadership and at least most of the science teachers are fully committed to the theory of evolution–as well as most of the board members–and as well as some in the theology department. To expect them to do a truly about face in a year (or even longer) is wishful thinking. The only way to obtain a change is to do some replacing of a good many of the teachers, the administration and the board–as well as their lawyer!
The few board members that really believe in our stand on creation have been treated shamefully. Students who believe in our stand have also been treated with contempt and their lives made miserable. That attitude of faculty and administration isn’t going to “go away.” They may put on a better front for while but will sooner or later find another way to carry out their own plans.
One thing that really bothers me is the fact that some–like Wisbey, Graham and others will probably retire and spend the rest of their lives getting a check every month from the church they have betrayed. I don’t suppose anything can legally be done about that now–but, please, let’s replace those who have betrayed our church and our children before they are eligible for tenure! There has been enough “foot dragging” already. More than enough of our precious youth have been lost to our church by these “wolves in sheep’s clothing.”
The “heart of the pastor” has plead with these folks long enough–it’s past time for the “heart of the pastor” to be turned toward the youth whose faith has been–and is being–destroyed by these agents of Satan (which they are—regardless of how sincere they may be in their belief of evolution.) Abraham had to send Ishmael away in order to protect Isaac. Can we not do the same in order to protect our “Isaac’s”? What will God say to us in the day of judgment if we don’t??
This is not going to be easy–but the longer we put it off the harder it will be–and the more of our precious youth will be destroyed. May God give our leaders the strength and determination to meet this “iceberg” head on!
Lydian Belknap(Quote)
View Comment@Lydian Belknap You are absolutely correct–the ones that are undermining our denominational institutions and churches are the very ones we, the constituents, will be paying for during decades of time, long past the time they have ceased to harm our denomination.
Regarding “replacement”–the “progressives” in our denomination are waiting to replace the “fundamentalists” according to Ryan Bell and others, although their plan may backfire since most of the new members in our SDA Church are actually NOT “progressives” but “Third
World” more bible-based SDA’s.
Ron Stone M.D.(Quote)
View CommentThe AAA statement said
LSU’s gracious reply offers appreciation for the extension – but does not admit to the wrong-doing identified in the AAA statement except to this extent.
Clearly LSU’s response is not admitting to wrong-doing at the level of the AAA board statement and the LSU response could indicate a committement to more ceremony in reading FB#6 to students so as to get that checkmark on the next review.
1. At no point does LSU claim that even to this day – they finally stopped promoting evolutionism as being the truth about what happened in nature regarding the origins of all complex life seen on earth today.
2. At no point does LSU claim that Bradley’s statement about what LSU is doing – is exactly what was being done at LSU.
3. At no point does the LSU statement claim that some epiphany (other than AAA board wake-up call) has occurred among LSU religion and biology dept profs, such that they finally figured out the flaw in their prior arguments.
“A man convinced against his will – is of the same opinion still.”
The cat-and-mouse game is apparent. The likely result is that the former evolutionist evangelists at LSU – are now the bitter or resentful evolutionists conducting biology and religion classes, appealing to students in perhaps not-so-subtle ways to “side with them” in lamenting the current position of the denomination.
It is as if the AAA board had said “I see by your teeth, claws and tail, you are a lion, we were wanting an elephant in that position”.
And the response from LSU is to bite off an elephant’s trunk and tail and attach them, showing a good faith effort by the lions among them to comply to the extent possible.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentLydian, some of our schools are looking for faculty RIGHT NOW. If you haven’t heard, they are hard to come by right now. I’m told that SAU, SWAU, WWU, and PUC are all struggling to find SDA biologists right now. SAU and SWAU have specifically advertised for “creationist biologists;” one would like to think they’ll be the first to find hires. Anyone have an update on these positions? (Maybe I can learn something by the weekend…I have my sources.)
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentThe problem is not mine to solve. If you think you have an answer, you should offer it to the administrators of SAU and SWAU.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentWow, Eddie; this is exactly what I feared. Actually, it’s worse. Very disturbing.
Does anyone know whether SWAU has had any success finding the “creationist biologists” they could not locate last year? I sincerely hope they are having better success than SAU.
Did I read somewhere here that LSU is looking for a biologist?
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentLydian, thanks for your post. That was wise and heartfelt, and I agree with you.
The fact is that this SDA church needs a full time apologetics ministry, focusing on creation/evolution, but covering the whole apologetics waterfront. I’ve been convicted of this for about year now, and I’ve said it on several blogs, but I haven’t really done anything positive to start the ball rolling. My spirit is willing but my flesh is weak. Pray for me.
David Read(Quote)
View CommentInstead of looking for creationist biologists, they could hire any biologist with the understanding that they are to teach facts only, and not speculate about origins. Then for the creation v. evolution part, they could just bring in lawyers, who are trained to argue and, more importantly, to separate fact from assumption. There’s no need to ask scientists to argue about origins when they are typically abysmally unqualified for the task.
David Read(Quote)
View CommentRe Lydian’s Quote
“Within the last month I have lost three dearly loved family members–my sister, my brother-in–law (they were getting close to their seventieth wedding anniversary and still deeply committed to each other) and my sister-in-law. Of course they were all very old and tired so, while sad, their deaths weren’t unexpected.”
Dear Lydian
I was very sorry to hear about your loss.
I admire your strong faith and may your God be with you.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View Comment