Today the Supreme Court decided what is likely the most important religious liberty case to come down in the past two decades.
In Hosanna-Tabor Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Court sided unanimously with a church sued for firing an employee on religious grounds, issuing an opinion on Wednesday that religious employers can keep the government out of hiring and firing decisions. [For additional details on the background and facts of the case, see the Liberty articles “An Issue of Church Autonomy: The Supreme Court Examines the Ministerial Exception Doctrine,” (Sept/Oct) and “Hosanna Tabor: The Supreme Court Hears Arguments in a Case with Far-Reaching Implications for Church Organizations” (Nov/Dec).]
The Court’s opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, dismissed as an “extreme position” the plea of EEOC to limit any “ministerial exception” solely to workers who perform “exclusively religious functions.”
Justice Thomas went even further in his concurring opinion, saying that it was clear that the parochial school’s sponsoring church “sincerely” considered the teacher to be a minister, and “That would be sufficient for me to conclude that [this] suit is properly barred by the ministerial exception.”
The General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists joined an amicus brief urging the court to rule on behalf of the Lutheran Church.
Said Todd McFarland, associate counsel with the Office of General Counsel and NARLA’s legal advisor: “The General Conference is pleased with the Court’s decision and the reasoning behind it. In particular, the Court’s rejection of the Administration’s view that the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment did not provide protection to religious organizations is especially heartening. This ruling reinforces that America’s First Freedom remains relevant.”
Mack, with due respect I think you’ve overstated the case. I looked up all of those articles you later cited using Google Scholar and found freely available full-text PDFs available for each article. I have not had the time to sit down and read each article, but I have read the abstract of each, which I’ll comment on in the next series of messages.
Eddie(Quote)
View CommentVellai T, Vida G. 1999. The origin of eukaryotes: the difference between prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells. Proc Biol Sci. 266(1428):1571-7. Abstract: Eukaryotes have long been thought to have arisen by evolving a nucleus, endomembrane, and cytoskeleton. In contrast, it was recently proposed that the first complex cells, which were actually proto–eukaryotes, arose simultaneously with the acquisition of mitochondria. This so–called symbiotic association hypothesis states that eukaryotes emerged when some ancient anaerobic archaebacteria (hosts) engulfed respiring αproteobacteria (symbionts), which evolved into the first energy–producing organelles. Therefore, the intracellular compartmentalization of the energy-converting metabolism that was bound originally to the plasma membrane appears to be the key innovation towards eukaryotic genome and cellular organization. The novel energy metabolism made it possible for the nucleotide synthetic apparatus of cells to be no longer limited by subsaturation with substrates and catalytic components. As a consequence, a considerable increase has occurred in the size and complexity of eukaryotic genomes, providing the genetic basis for most of the further evolutionary changes in cellular complexity. On the other hand, the active uptake of exogenous DNA, which is general in bacteria, was no longer essential in the genome organization of eukaryotes. The mitochondrion–driven scenario for the first eukaryotes explains the chimera–like composition of eukaryotic genomes as well as the metabolic and cellular organization of eukaryotes.
Note the following statements above: “thought to have arisen by” and “it was recently proposed.” The article describes a “mitochondrion–driven scenario” which is a hypothesis–not fact–for the origin of eukaryotes.
Eddie(Quote)
View CommentMartin W, Rotte C, Hoffmeister M, Theissen U, Gelius-Dietrich G, Ahr S, Henze K. 2003. Early cell evolution, eukaryotes, anoxia, sulfide, oxygen, fungi first (?), and a tree of genomes revisited. IUBMB Life 55(4-5):193-204. Abstract: Genomes contain evidence for the history of life and furthermore contain evidence for lateral gene transfer, which was an important part of that history. The geological record also contains evidence for the history of life, and newer findings indicates that the Earth’s oceans were largely anoxic and highly sulfidic up until about 0.6 billion years ago. Eukaryotes, which fossil data indicate to have been in existence for at least 1.5 billion years, must have therefore spent much of their evolutionary history in oxygen-poor and sulfide-rich environments. Many eukaryotes still inhabit such environments today. Among eukaryotes, organelles also contain evidence for the history of life and have preserved abundant traces of their anaerobic past in the form of energy metabolic pathways. New views of eukaryote phylogeny suggest that fungi may be among the earliestbranching eukaryotes. From the standpoint of the fungal feeding habit (osmotrophy rather than phagotrophy) and from the standpoint of the diversity in their ATP-producing pathways, a eukaryotic tree with fungi first would make sense. Because of lateral gene transfer and endosymbiosis, branches in the tree of genomes intermingle and occasionally fuse, but the overall contours of cell history nonetheless seem sketchable and roughly correlateable with geological time.
Note the following statements above: “must have therefore spent much of their evolutionary history,” “New views of eukaryote phylogeny suggest that fungi may be among the earliestbranching eukaryotes,” and “the overall contours of cell history nonetheless seem sketchable and roughly correlateable.” Nice hypothesis, but no certainty about how eukaryotes evolved.
Eddie(Quote)
View Comment@Eddie:
Did you not read the first half of the sentence?
“Because of lateral gene transfer and endosymbiosis, branches in the tree of genomes intermingle and occasionally fuse”
That is how.
Ron(Quote)
View CommentCavalier-Smith T. 2006. Cell evolution and Earth history: stasis and revolution. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 361(1470):969-1006. Abstract: This synthesis has three main parts. The first discusses the overall tree of life and nature of the last common ancestor (cenancestor). I emphasize key steps in cellular evolution important for ordering and timing the major evolutionary innovations in the history of the biosphere, explaining especially the origins of the eukaryote cell and of bacterial flagella and cell envelope novelties. Second, I map the tree onto the fossil record and discuss dates of key events and their biogeochemical impact. Finally, I present a broad synthesis, discussing evidence for a three-phase history of life. The first phase began perhaps ca 3.5 Gyr ago, when the origin of cells and anoxic photosynthesis generated the arguably most primitive prokaryote phylum, Chlorobacteria (=Chloroflexi), the first negibacteria with cells bounded by two acyl ester phospholipid membranes. After this ‘chlorobacterial age’ of benthic anaerobic evolution protected from UV radiation by mineral grains, two momentous quantum evolutionary episodes of cellular innovation and microbial radiation dramatically transformed the Earth’s surface: the glycobacterial revolution initiated an oxygenic ‘age of cyanobacteria’ and, as the ozone layer grew, the rise of plankton; immensely later, probably as recently as ca 0.9 Gyr ago, the neomuran revolution ushered in the ‘age of eukaryotes’, Archaebacteria (arguably the youngest bacterial phylum), and morphological complexity. Diversification of glycobacteria ca 2.8 Gyr ago, predominantly inhabiting stratified benthic mats, I suggest caused serial depletion of 13C by ribulose 1,5-bis-phosphate caboxylase/oxygenase (Rubisco) to yield ultralight late Archaean organic carbon formerly attributed to methanogenesis plus methanotrophy. The late origin of archaebacterial methanogenesis ca 720 Myr ago perhaps triggered snowball Earth episodes by slight global warming increasing weathering and reducing CO2 levels, to yield runaway cooling; the origin of anaerobic methane oxidation ca 570 Myr ago reduced methane flux at source, stabilizing Phanerozoic climates. I argue that the major cellular innovations exhibit a pattern of quantum evolution followed by very rapid radiation and then substantial stasis, as described by Simpson. They yielded organisms that are a mosaic of extremely conservative and radically novel features, as characterized by De Beer’s phrase ‘mosaic evolution’. Evolution is not evenly paced and there are no real molecular clocks.
The author states: “I argue that the major cellular innovations exhibit a pattern of quantum evolution followed by very rapid radiation and then substantial stasis, as described by Simpson.” But the author fails to explain the precise steps required for a prokaryote to evolve into a eukaryote.
Eddie(Quote)
View CommentCavalier-Smith T. 2002. The phagotrophic origin of eukaryotes and phylogenetic classification of Protozoa. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology 52(2):297-354. Abstract: Eukaryotes and archaebacteria form the clade neomura and are sisters, as shown decisively by genes fragmented only in archaebacteria and by many sequence trees. This sisterhood refutes all theories that eukaryotes originated by merging an archaebacterium and an alpha-proteobacterium, which also fail to account for numerous features shared specifically by eukaryotes and actinobacteria. I revise the phagotrophy theory of eukaryote origins by arguing that the essentially autogenous origins of most eukaryotic cell properties (phagotrophy, endomembrane system including peroxisomes, cytoskeleton, nucleus, mitosis and sex) partially overlapped and were synergistic with the symbiogenetic origin of mitochondria from an alpha-proteobacterium. These radical innovations occurred in a derivative of the neomuran common ancestor, which itself had evolved immediately prior to the divergence of eukaryotes and archaebacteria by drastic alterations to its eubacterial ancestor, an actinobacterial posibacterium able to make sterols, by replacing murein peptidoglycan by N-linked glycoproteins and a multitude of other shared neomuran novelties. The conversion of the rigid neomuran wall into a flexible surface coat and the associated origin of phagotrophy were instrumental in the evolution of the endomembrane system, cytoskeleton, nuclear organization and division and sexual life-cycles. Cilia evolved not by symbiogenesis but by autogenous specialization of the cytoskeleton. I argue that the ancestral eukaryote was uniciliate with a single centriole (unikont) and a simple centrosomal cone of microtubules, as in the aerobic amoebozoan zooflagellate Phalansterium. I infer the root of the eukaryote tree at the divergence between opisthokonts (animals, Choanozoa, fungi) with a single posterior cilium and all other eukaryotes, designated ‘anterokonts’ because of the ancestral presence of an anterior cilium. Anterokonts comprise the Amoebozoa, which may be ancestrally unikont, and a vast ancestrally biciliate clade, named ‘bikonts’. The apparently conflicting rRNA and protein trees can be reconciled with each other and this ultrastructural interpretation if long-branch distortions, some mechanistically explicable, are allowed for. Bikonts comprise two groups: corticoflagellates, with a younger anterior cilium, no centrosomal cone and ancestrally a semi-rigid cell cortex with a microtubular band on either side of the posterior mature centriole; and Rhizaria [a new infrakingdom comprising Cercozoa (now including Ascetosporea classis nov.), Retaria phylum nov., Heliozoa and Apusozoa phylum nov.], having a centrosomal cone or radiating microtubules and two microtubular roots and a soft surface, frequently with reticulopodia. Corticoflagellates comprise photokaryotes (Plantae and chromalveolates, both ancestrally with cortical alveoli) and Excavata (a new protozoan infrakingdom comprising Loukozoa, Discicristata and Archezoa, ancestrally with three microtubular roots). All basal eukaryotic radiations were of mitochondrial aerobes; hydrogenosomes evolved polyphyletically from mitochondria long afterwards, the persistence of their double envelope long after their genomes disappeared being a striking instance of membrane heredity. I discuss the relationship between the 13 protozoan phyla recognized here and revise higher protozoan classification by updating as subkingdoms Lankester’s 1878 division of Protozoa into Corticata (Excavata, Alveolata; with prominent cortical microtubules and ancestrally localized cytostome–the Parabasalia probably secondarily internalized the cytoskeleton) and Gymnomyxa [infrakingdoms Sarcomastigota (Choanozoa, Amoebozoa) and Rhizaria; both ancestrally with a non-cortical cytoskeleton of radiating singlet microtubules and a relatively soft cell surface with diffused feeding]. As the eukaryote root almost certainly lies within Gymnomyxa, probably among the Sarcomastigota, Corticata are derived. Following the single symbiogenetic origin of chloroplasts in a corticoflagellate host with cortical alveoli, this ancestral plant radiated rapidly into glaucophytes, green plants and red algae. Secondary symbiogeneses subsequently transferred plastids laterally into different hosts, making yet more complex cell chimaeras–probably only thrice: from a red alga to the corticoflagellate ancestor of chromalveolates (Chromista plus Alveolata), from green algae to a secondarily uniciliate cercozoan to form chlorarachneans and independently to a biciliate excavate to yield photosynthetic euglenoids. Tertiary symbiogenesis involving eukaryotic algal symbionts replaced peridinin-containing plastids in two or three dinoflagellate lineages, but yielded no major novel groups. The origin and well-resolved primary bifurcation of eukaryotes probably occurred in the Cryogenian Period, about 850 million years ago, much more recently than suggested by unwarranted backward extrapolations of molecular ‘clocks’ or dubious interpretations as ‘eukaryotic’ of earlier large microbial fossils or still more ancient steranes. The origin of chloroplasts and the symbiogenetic incorporation of a red alga into a corticoflagellate to create chromalveolates may both have occurred in a big bang after the Varangerian snowball Earth melted about 580 million years ago, thereby stimulating the ensuing Cambrian explosion of animals and protists in the form of simultaneous, poorly resolved opisthokont and anterokont radiations.
The abstract is super long. The author states: “I revise the phagotrophy theory of eukaryote origins by arguing that the essentially autogenous origins of most eukaryotic cell properties (phagotrophy, endomembrane system including peroxisomes, cytoskeleton, nucleus, mitosis and sex) partially overlapped and were synergistic with the symbiogenetic origin of mitochondria from an alpha-proteobacterium.” Nice hypothesis, but not much certainty.
Eddie(Quote)
View CommentNowack ECM, Melkonian M. 2010. Endosymbiotic associations within protists. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 365(1541):699-712. Abstract (from website, not actual pdf): The establishment of an endosymbiotic relationship typically seems to be driven through complementation of the host’s limited metabolic capabilities by the biochemical versatility of the endosymbiont. The most significant examples of endosymbiosis are represented by the endosymbiotic acquisition of plastids and mitochondria, introducing photosynthesis and respiration to eukaryotes. However, there are numerous other endosymbioses that evolved more recently and repeatedly across the tree of life. Recent advances in genome sequencing technology have led to a better understanding of the physiological basis of many endosymbiotic associations. This review focuses on endosymbionts in protists (unicellular eukaryotes). Selected examples illustrate the incorporation of various new biochemical functions, such as photosynthesis, nitrogen fixation and recycling, and methanogenesis, into protist hosts by prokaryotic endosymbionts. Furthermore, photosynthetic eukaryotic endosymbionts display a great diversity of modes of integration into different protist hosts. In conclusion, endosymbiosis seems to represent a general evolutionary strategy of protists to acquire novel biochemical functions and is thus an important source of genetic innovation.
The conclusion: “endosymbiosis seems to represent a general evolutionary strategy of protists.” Doesn’t sound particularly convincing.
Eddie(Quote)
View CommentAlvarez-Martinez CE, Christie PJ. 2009. Biological diversity of prokaryotic type IV secretion systems. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 73(4):775-808. Astract: Type IV secretion systems (T4SS) translocate DNA and protein substrates across prokaryotic cell envelopes generally by a mechanism requiring direct contact with a target cell. Three types of T4SS have been described: (i) conjugation systems, operationally defined as machines that translocate DNA substrates intercellularly by a contact-dependent process; (ii) effector translocator systems, functioning to deliver proteins or other macromolecules to eukaryotic target cells; and (iii) DNA release/uptake systems, which translocate DNA to or from the extracellular milieu. Studies of a few paradigmatic systems, notably the conjugation systems of plasmids F, R388, RP4, and pKM101 and the Agrobacterium tumefaciens VirB/VirD4 system, have supplied important insights into the structure, function, and mechanism of action of type IV secretion machines. Information on these systems is updated, with emphasis on recent exciting structural advances. An underappreciated feature of T4SS, most notably of the conjugation subfamily, is that they are widely distributed among many species of gram-negative and -positive bacteria, wall-less bacteria, and the Archaea. Conjugation-mediated lateral gene transfer has shaped the genomes of most if not all prokaryotes over evolutionary time and also contributed in the short term to the dissemination of antibiotic resistance and other virulence traits among medically important pathogens. How have these machines adapted to function across envelopes of distantly related microorganisms? A survey of T4SS functioning in phylogenetically diverse species highlights the biological complexity of these translocation systems and identifies common mechanistic themes as well as novel adaptations for specialized purposes relating to the modulation of the donor-target cell interaction.
The article focuses on prokaryotes. No mention of the word “eukaryote” in the abstract. I searched the text for “eukaryote” and found only one sentence:
“Bioinformatic screens have, however, identified proteins with eukaryote-like domains including Ank repeats, tetratricopeptide repeats, coiled-coil domains, leucine-rich repeats, GTPase domains, ubiquitination-related motifs, and eukaryote-like kinases and phosphatases (273, 274).”
Eddie(Quote)
View CommentJékely G. 2009. Evolution of phototaxis. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 364(1531):2795-808. Abstract: Phototaxis in the broadest sense means positive or negative displacement along a light gradient or vector. Prokaryotes most often use a biased random walk strategy, employing type I sensory rhodopsin photoreceptors and two-component signalling to regulate flagellar reversal. This strategy only allows phototaxis along steep light gradients, as found in microbial mats or sediments. Some filamentous cyanobacteria evolved the ability to steer towards a light vector. Even these cyanobacteria, however, can only navigate in two dimensions, gliding on a surface. In contrast, eukaryotes evolved the capacity to follow a light vector in three dimensions in open water. This strategy requires a polarized organism with a stable form, helical swimming with cilia and a shading or focusing body adjacent to a light sensor to allow for discrimination of light direction. Such arrangement and the ability of three-dimensional phototactic navigation evolved at least eight times independently in eukaryotes. The origin of three-dimensional phototaxis often followed a transition from a benthic to a pelagic lifestyle and the acquisition of chloroplasts either via primary or secondary endosymbiosis. Based on our understanding of the mechanism of phototaxis in single-celled eukaryotes and animal larvae, it is possible to define a series of elementary evolutionary steps, each of potential selective advantage, which can lead to pelagic phototactic navigation. We can conclude that it is relatively easy to evolve phototaxis once cell polarity, ciliary swimming and a stable cell shape are present.
Note the following statement: “it is possible to define a series of elementary evolutionary steps, each of potential selective advantage, which can lead to pelagic phototactic navigation.” Again, a nice hypothetical set of steps, but no certainty. And it’s staggering to think that “three-dimensional phototactic navigation evolved at least eight times independently in eukaryotes”!
Eddie(Quote)
View CommentArnold ML, Sapir Y, Martin NH. 2008. Review. Genetic exchange and the origin of adaptations: prokaryotes to primates. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 363(1505):2813-20. Abstract: Data supporting the occurrence of adaptive trait transfer (i.e. the transfer of genes and thus the phenotype of an adaptive trait through viral recombination, lateral gene transfer or introgressive hybridization) are provided in this review. Specifically, we discuss examples of lateral gene transfer and introgressive hybridization that have resulted in the transfer or de novo origin of adaptations. The evolutionary clades in which this process has been identified include all types of organisms. However, we restrict our discussion to bacteria, fungi, plants and animals. Each of these examples reflects the same consequence, namely that the transfer of genetic material, through whatever mechanism, may result in adaptive evolution. In particular, each of the events discussed has been inferred to impact adaptations to novel environmental settings in the recipient lineage.
Okay, so gene transfer occurs at a lot of different group of organisms. But it doesn’t explain how prokaryotes evolved into eukaryotes. In fact, a search of the full text reveals that the word “eukaryote” appears only in the literature cited section.
Eddie(Quote)
View CommentSo Mack, after reviewing those articles it appears to me that there is still no certainty about how prokaryotes evolved into eukaryotes. Instead, there remain several competing hypotheses lacking a step-by-step process that can be demonstrated in a laboratory.
After decades of manipulating the genome of bacteria (prokaryotes), have any ever been produced with a true nuclear membrane, non-circular chromosome, multiple chromosomes, golgi apparatus, chloroplasts, endoplasmic reticulum, 80S-type ribosomes, DNA wrapping on proteins, mitosis, lysosomes, peroxisomes, or a flagellum composed of more than one fiber? If eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes, why can’t the sequence of events be repeated within the lab?
Eddie(Quote)
View CommentAnd if a series of steps occurred in the evolution of prokaryotes to eukaryotes, why is there today such a huge gap between them with no intermediate stages?
Eddie(Quote)
View CommentIt is hard to be “certain” about a story with no data. (Unless we are talking about the certainty that it is just a story after all).
Currently they are forced to “believe” stories about prokaryotes that can not even be “manufactured” in a lab.
Without anything in the lab or in the fossil record to support prokaryote to eukaryote stories – it is merely an entertaining form of fiction.
Which is why I am surprised that evolutionists would want to expose that point.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View Comment“thought to have arisen by…” and “was recently proposed…” is the language of storytelling.
For some that will substitute for observable science – but for the objective unbiased reader using a bit of critical thinking – it is nothing more than a demonstration of wishful thinking.
No wonder Patterson – a diehard atheist evolutionist himself was compelled to lament the distinctively religious nature of the argument for evolutionism.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentI for one am happy to have an evolutionist observe an enzyme here or there – even if it is just a kinase enzyme.
But to equivocate between observing an enzyme – and actually having a eukaryote cell formed from a prokaryote cell is nothing short of pulp fiction. Of course if that is really all they have for the prokaryote to eukaryote storytelling … well I suppose they have to make do with what they have.
Oh well – blind faith being what it is.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentDavid Read said over on Spectrum….
“I understand that in a church as large as the Seventh-day Adventist Church, there will be many hangers on, non-believers or extremely heterodox believers who are connected through marriage and/or other family ties to the church. That’s unavoidable and it doesn’t bother me. But we are now way, way beyond that. We are now in a situation in which liberals and traditional Adventists are in a “winner-take-all” struggle for control of the church and its institutions. It’s a civil war, and at this point the conservatives are being routed, I think largely because we’ve been in deep denial about the extent of apostasy and rebellion in the official church.”
Let me say I think God for men like David and could only wish a lot more people would become informed of what is happening in the SDA church. Now notice a response to David’s comments by a liberal…
“Rich Hannon – Mon, 01/23/2012 – 18:39
David: an effective tactic to shut down serious conversation where substantive disagreement is occurring but respectful people might listen and perhaps understand each other – is to try and convince participants and bystanders that there is a war going on. So I can understand your tactics. But this is your perception, your spin. Not reality. And I think pushing this distortion of reality is disgraceful.”
They hope to avoid any real evaluation of their forum as an apostate SDA forum that not only attacks and opposes the SDA church, but Christanity in every context.
Not only must they be exposed as an antichrist movement, but must be opposed and run out of the church as anti-Adventism.
We can wonder how long they will tolerate David Read on their forum? They run me off for the same reason. They hate real challenge and hope to avoid exposure by claiming to be a “supporting ministry”.
Just like the devil in heaven as he attack and opposed God’s kingdom while claiming loyalty to His government. A perfect parallel is obvious.
Wake up SDA’s!!!! “Your house is on fire, and your children will burn……”
I always wondered what that “Lady Bug, lady bug, fly away home” was all about? Now I know.
Bill Sorensen
Bill Sorensen(Quote)
View CommentThe 4th commandment says “For in SIX DAYS the Lord MADE the heavens and the earth the seas and all that is in them and rested the Seventh day”
Your argument is the classic atheist claim that the Bible is at most the best efforts of well intentioned men living in pre-scientific cultures Certainly you are welcome to downsize God’s word as the demands of evolutionism may dictate.
But few SDAs here are willing to leap off that cliff.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentAs much as I agree with David’s point about two opposing groups trying to gain control of the helm. I would argue on the upside that the GC2010 situation was a turn toward affirmation of the Bible and against the slash-and-burn policies of liberals.
With the election of Wilson and the decision to through evolutionism under the bus – in favor of acceptance of the Bible – I see at least a glimmer of hope for the conservative, Bible believing group.
And in the future there is always the “shaking” where God himself arranges events on planet earth such that those promoting the agenda of error will be falling all over themselves trying to find the exit.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentBob, you’re right that the election of Wilson was viewed by both liberals and conservatives as a conservative course correction. I agree with that assessment. There is reason for optimism.
But the GC president has little control over non-GC institutions. That’s why the situation at La Sierra U has not appreciably improved. What is more, the somewhat inept attempts to use AAA to positively intervene at LSU are further ground for pessimism. They failed, and they revealed Dan Jackson as, if not an outright liberal, certainly not a vigorous traditionalist.
Ultimately, LSU is a Pacific Union institution, and if the leaders of the church in that region are not up to governing it—and so far they’re obviously not—then it will continue as it has been going, actively undermining Adventist faith.
David Read(Quote)
View CommentDavid – I believe you are correct. And given the statements by Daniel Jackson at that LSU taped in-house meeting, I wonder just how much control a GC president has over the elected department heads at the GC.
His power in the church seems to consiste more in the area of “influence” then direct reporting. (More like the problem of herding cats I suppose).
We need to pray for him.
But the good news is that God is ultimately at the helm and will bring in a sifting and shaking — whereby those who oppose the Bible position of the church will not find it convenient to stick with it.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentBut the good news is that God is ultimately at the helm and will bring in a sifting and shaking — whereby those who oppose the Bible position of the church will not find it convenient to stick with it.
in Christ,
Bob
I agree, Bob. And I think it is wise to wait to some extent. But I think we all know that God never uses “hocus pocus” to accomplish His will. He does use human instrumentalities who are willing to sacrifice every convenience and their influence and popularity and acceptability in the church to defend His kingdom.
I think many seem to opt for some “hocus pocus” agenda that God will somehow use to cause the shaking. But here is what EGW has said…..
” I asked the meaning of the shaking I had seen, and was shown that it would be caused by the straight testimony called forth by the counsel of the True Witness to the Laodiceans. This will have its effect upon the heart of the receiver, and will lead him to exalt the standard and pour forth the straight truth. Some will not bear this straight testimony. They will rise up against it, and this is what will cause a shaking among God’s people. {CET 176.1}”
So when the “straight testimony” is presented in its true import and meaning, we know the opposition will not like it. But they will surely not oppose it in any dynamic way as long as they hold control of the church. Why would they?
Why would the devil attack Adventism when he is sucessfully gaining control more and more by infilteration? Only if and when more and more people demand accountability of their church leaders, will any real dynamic action be forth coming.
I don’t like the idea that some think is essential to maintain any viable spirituality. They simply withdraw from the church. I understand their reasons. They don’t want their children corrupted by apostacy and they don’t feel they have any influence to make a difference. And it may be a viable option in some cases. But I prefer and think it is more in line with God’s will to stay and protest and “fight the good fight of faith.”
If they throw you out, and I have been threatened with this tactic, then the decision is more complex. EGW also said this about people in Samuel’s day….
“As the men of Israel witnessed the corrupt course of the priests, they thought it safer for their families not to come up to the appointed place of worship. Many went from Shiloh with their peace disturbed, their indignation aroused, until they at last determined to offer their sacrifices themselves, concluding that this would be fully as acceptable to God, as to sanction in any manner the abominations practiced in the sanctuary (ST Dec. 1. 1881).” {2BC 1010.4}
Who is to say we are not in the same situation today? So I can not condemn anyone who will not allow their children to be corrupted by the present liberal agenda and the celebration worship style in our churches of today.
What we need is more people who know and are convicted of the apostacy in their church to demand accountability, first of ourselves individually, and the church leaders corporately. If not, the liberals will eventually utterly destroy historic Adventism and God will use other means to finish His work.
Bill Sorensen
Bill Sorensen(Quote)
View CommentI don’t know how SDA statistics compare to the USA in general, I know it is a problem everywhere.
My perspective is probably opposite yours. As I have watched my kids and their friends grow up, I have noticed that the kids from the most conservative and controlling families seem to be the ones having the most problems. It seems that the children whose parents were more liberal and encouraged their children to make their own decisions are doing the best. It seems to me that a conservative viewpoint is actually a risk factor for drug abuse.
Do you have specific suggestions in mind?
Ron(Quote)
View CommentDavid, I agree with everything you say. Regarding Dan Jackson, did he ever actually try to “spank” Pastor Assherick? Does anyone know? When and where? Is this a legitimate and legal form of pastoral discipline? Jackson appears to want to or to have actually given a “slap on the wrist” to those at La Sierra.
That seems a more lenient punishment than a spanking, meaning Pastor Assherick must have done something more serious than those at La Sierra. Has President Jackson explained himself regarding this matter?
Holly Pham(Quote)
View CommentWell, Eddie, I am a very happy person. I never said there weren’t “positive” things that happen at SDA campuses, and I have always supported those. That is a “smokescreen” argument, to use Dr. Stone’ categorization.
The fact that SDA campuses do virtually nothing as far being “proactive” in the drug realm disturbs me quite a bit.
Holly Pham(Quote)
View CommentIt is another serious problem that has crept into our SDA institutions, because of the rampant secularization of our campuses.
I am not against counseling and never said so. It simply does not work when done the way most campuses do it. Check out the drug statistics on campuses today.
Holly Pham(Quote)
View CommentDavid Read, I put this quote up on the Spectrum forum. I never made a single comment. They delete anything I put on the forum. But someone may have read it before it was deleted. You mentioned “war” and they went bonkers when you catagorized the difference and the impossibility of co-existence and compromise. So you said, “war”. Here is the EGW quote. See if they will leave it on if you post it.
“It required a desperate struggle for those who would be faithful to stand firm against the deceptions and abominations which were disguised in sacerdotal garments and introduced into the church. The Bible was not accepted as the standard of faith. The doctrine of religious freedom was termed heresy, and its upholders were hated and proscribed. {GC88 45.1}
After a long and severe conflict, the faithful few decided to dissolve all union with the apostate church if she still refused to free herself from falsehood and idolatry. They saw that separation was an absolute necessity if they would obey the Word of God. They dared not tolerate errors fatal to their own souls, and set an example which would imperil the faith of their children and children’s children. To secure peace and unity they were ready to make any concession consistent with fidelity to God; but they felt that even peace would be too dearly purchased at the sacrifice of principle. If unity could be secured only by the compromise of truth and righteousness, then let there be difference, and even war. {GC88 45.2}
Well would it be for the church and the world if the principles that actuated those steadfast souls were revived in the hearts of God’s professed people. There is an alarming indifference in regard to the doctrines which are the pillars of the Christian faith. The opinion is gaining ground, that,
46
after all, these are not of vital importance. This degeneracy is strengthening the hands of the agents of Satan, so that false theories and fatal delusions which the faithful in ages past imperiled their lives to resist and expose, are now regarded with favor by thousands who claim to be followers of Christ.” {GC88 45.3}
Bill Sorensen
Bill Sorensen(Quote)
View CommentI don’t know how SDA statistics compare to the USA in general, I know it is a problem everywhere.
My perspective is probably opposite yours. As I have watched my kids and their friends grow up, I have noticed that the kids from the most conservative and controlling families seem to be the ones having the most problems. It seems that the children whose parents were more liberal and encouraged their children to make their own decisions are doing the best. It seems to me that a conservative viewpoint is actually a risk factor for drug abuse.
Do you have specific suggestions in mind?
Ron(Quote)
View CommentHolly, I’m curious to know the basis of your statement. Do you work on a SDA campus? Are you a professional counselor? Have you ever counseled a friend or colleague who abused drugs? What do you suggest SDA campuses do differently?
Eddie(Quote)
View CommentDear friends
As I witness all this internicine, doctrinal infighting within your ranks, I wonder if this is as far removed from the divine as one can be? So many claiming the high ground eviscerating others who differ in opinion. Such complicated theology that seems to make the simple premise of loving one’s fellow man an afterthought. Actually condeming others to oblivion because they accept Christ but think differently!
Wasn’t Jesus’s message about being humble and loving one’s fellow man rather than being self rightgeous?
Perhaps I’m missing the point and have no right to express this opinion. but sometimes the heart speaks for the head.
Please take care of each other no matter what you think.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View CommentI think there is some confusion about the role of science here. Science is very explicit about “proof” and “certainty” in that there isn’t any. I presented you with a half dozen articles in a few minutes of searching. There might be better ones out there but from long experience I know that even the best evidence is unconvincing to the close-minded. Like I said before to be comprehensive would take libraries (and you’re welcome to the public access by the way, I included that in my search parameters). That said you’re right the sense that evolutionists may not have a perfect picture of how the world works, but they never claimed to. That claim is reserved by solely by creationists. I never said it would be convincing. In fact I said several times that it would not be. We all achieve the level of enlightenment that we work to obtain. For those who refuse to see truth or reason, libraries of evidence will never be persuasive. The Bar is set too high. You would have to go back in time and observe the events in person without disturbing the events in motion. The only “evidence” that could possibly be convincing is a notarized statement by god saying this is the way it is, which of course you believe you already have. That this doesn’t make sense is readily explained by being the foolishness of the Greeks. This is fine, let’s look at your story and see if that makes sense. The creation story blatantly contradicts itself between chapters 1 and 2, the flood has multiple problems such as number of animals, zoological necessities, sustainable ecology, the coming and going of all the water, the mysterious olive leaf, extant archaeological evidence predating the flood, lack of geological evidence for a truly global flood, the diversity of people and animals, the time it takes to spread from Ararat to the rest of the world, etc. When you look at the stories, it’s quite clear that Adam and Eve and Noah and the Ark are speaking about spiritual truths not literal ones. Ignoring all the physical evidence, logical idiocies, you have the language in the bible. It’s obviously spiritual in nature, the raven finds nothing, the Dove finds an olive leaf. It’s an blatantly spiritual story meant to have a spiritual lesson. This is a very different kind of language used in other places in the bible to talk about more or less literal events. There may well have been a regional disaster on the Mediterranean at some point, but it clearly didn’t destroy the entire world in a literal fashion. It would violate every known law of physics and biology that we know.
Mack Ramsy(Quote)
View Comment@bill how can you imply that Liberals are secretly in control of the church when it was conservatives who got those researchers fired and the most conservative leadership in years has been elected into office? This rather suggests that political fortunes favor conservatives at this moment.
Mack Ramsy(Quote)
View Comment@all you guys hoping for “the shaking” probably shouldn’t hope to much. The church is as minuscule enough as it is. It also rather directly contradictory toward our evangelical goals. It’s awkward to go through purges when you’re trying to recruit new members.
Mack Ramsy(Quote)
View CommentAmen brother Ken!
Eddie(Quote)
View Comment@Eddie: Amen, amen, brothers Ken and Ed — and it was about BEING righteous. Lest we forget. As we seem inclined to do.
Wesley Kime(Quote)
View CommentAmen brother Ken!
Eddie(Quote)
View Comment@Eddie: Amen, amen, brothers Ken and Ed — and it was about BEING righteous. Lest we forget. As we seem inclined to do.
Wesley Kime(Quote)
View CommentNot everyone is pleased with the idea of the shaking that God is planning in the near future – I will grant you that.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentDear friends
As I witness all this internicine, doctrinal infighting within your ranks, I wonder if this is as far removed from the divine as one can be? So many claiming the high ground eviscerating others who differ in opinion. Such complicated theology that seems to make the simple premise of loving one’s fellow man an afterthought. Actually condeming others to oblivion because they accept Christ but think differently!
Wasn’t Jesus’s message about being humble and loving one’s fellow man rather than being self rightgeous?
Perhaps I’m missing the point and have no right to express this opinion. but sometimes the heart speaks for the head.
Please take care of each other no matter what you think.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Ken, since you confess that you are not a believer, how could you possibly be able to discern what is non-negotiable in a given Christian community, and what is not?
As an example, your evalutation could easily be extended to Luther, John the Baptist, Elijah, and briefly, any and all the prophets including Jesus Himself. Not to mention the war in heaven over simular issues.
Lucifer’s call for unity based on love apparently won for him considerable commendation by more than a few angels who were eventually expelled from heaven.
You obviously would applaud love and unity since you have no convictions of right or wrong in this biblical debate of evolution vs. creation. All you can possibly do is observe and wonder who is right and who is wrong and why does it matter?
I would think by now you would at least have observed the strong convictions of both sides. How is it you can not see the irreconcilable and non-negotiable difference?
So, for some at least, your observation and exhortation is trite. At least pay attention before making such a comment.
Bill Sorensen
Bill Sorensen(Quote)
View Comment1. Science is all about observation and experiment. Something that the amoeba-to-horse, hyrax-to-horse, and prokaryote-to-eukaryote storytelling is lacking. Hence Pattern’s lament.
2. Science is being coopted – indeed hijacked by evolutionist-well-wishers in a thinly disguised effort to cover bad religion with a garb of “science terms” all the while destroying science.
It is interesting that even atheist evolutionists like Patterson will admit to this basic point about “doing harm to systematics” via evolutionism.
There are a great many articles on a great many topics – that was not the challenge.
More to the point – atheist evolutionists such as Colin Patterson are in fact correct when they lament the “revealed truth” religious nature of the argument for evolutionism.
Where time after time the evolutionist merely assumes the salient point of his argument rather than actually proving it.
If you want an bit more of an objective view of that – you apparently cannot go to SDA evolutionists – you have to go to an atheist evolutionist like Colin Patterson who compares the creationist argument for certainty with the evolutionist argument that uses the same religious “certainty as to the fact all the while pleading ignorance as to the means”.
This is an objective up front comparison of the two groups given to us by an atheist evolutionist!
How sad that we have some SDA evolutionists that do not wish to step to that level.
Oh well – I suppose it was to be expected.
Perhaps the bar that Patterson sets for SDA evolutionists – is just too high for them.
Indeed – the proclivity of the evolutionist to grasp the Bible by the throat in an effort to set it aside so they can make their case with more freedom – is not totally unknown to us.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentStop the bus! Time for a break in favor of at least an ounce or two of critical thinking.
In your statement above – you seem (once again) to be revealing much more than you may have at first intended. (Kind of like your foray into the realm of intelligent design).
1. In the case above you imply that Genesis 1 and 2 is the SDA’s story as if we wrote it.
2. You unwittingly place yourself in opposition to Genesis 1 and 2 as if your gaining some kind of victory against SDAs by discrediting Genesis 1 and 2 would help your argument in some way. While I could understand that form of opposition if your claim was atheist or agnostic… but my understanding is that you are not comfortable with the atheist position nor even the agnostic one? So why do you feel compelled to oppose the text of the Bible itself?
3. I am willing to bet that “on other days” you are more than willing to admit that “SDAs did not write Genesis 1 and 2”.
And thus the book – the Bible is “not OUR story” but rather we are Bible believing Christians who claim that the Bible is the “Word of God” not “The Word of SDAs”. We did not author it. It is not our idea.
Is it your claim that SDAs are the authors of the Ten Commandments? That we wrote them – they are “our story” and so “for in SIX Days the Lord made the heavens and the earth the seas and all that is in them and rested the SEVENTH day” is really just “our creation story” – an SDA myth, an SDA “story”?
BTW – in your attack on Genesis 1 and 2 – you show no studied review of the text at all – no exegesis at all. Would you be just as careless with Exodus 20:11?
As usual – no reliable rendering of the text in your complaint – and nothing to back up your wild claims.
Yet you position the question as if you had a video of all conditions on earth during the world wide flood – right down to were the leaves were!!
Fascinating the amount of certainty the evolutionist will claim to have when they have no data on a given subject.
Not even close. The text gives us names, and families and timelines and refers the reader to geography that the reader would be aware of –
Exegesis of the text without the pre-bias of evolutionism – shows the text to be a reliable historic record – not a parable or a myth.
Hence SDA fundamental belief #1.
With the evolutionists having gone sideways starting right at “belief #1” what level of common ground does an SDA evolutionist really seek with the actual SDA denomination and it’s teaching?
Is the only path for reconciliation – that we all throw our Bible’s under the bus in true “sacrifice all for evolutionism” fashion? Is that what the evolutionist demands – so that we can come to terms when it comes to doctrine and belief?
Total nonsense.
The idea that it is better to deny the actual words in the text of Genesis 7-8 and “pretend” that God promised Noah that no local flood would ever happen again – only serves to destroy both the Bible and trust in God.
Again I say – I would understand your solution if your intent were to argue in favor of the agnostic or atheist POV — I would have to at least applaud your consistency in that regard.
Since you seem to circle back to that position so regularly – are you trying to tell us something? Is that really where you want to go?
WE keep insisting that this is the direction that evolutionism would take the SDA church – but why are YOU so anxious to demonstrate that point for us? What is in it for you?
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View Comment3SG 90-91 declares that Theistic Evolutionism is a form of doctrinal and theological infidelity – in fact the “Worst form” because it is infidelity “in disguise”.
The argument on those pages is that the evolutionist argument naturally leads to an attack on the Bible, creation week, the Sabbath and trust in the Bible as the Word of God – leading ultimately to distrust in the God of the Bible.
Some may wish to differ with the view that 3SG 90-91 paints. But given Mark’s recent posts – and his choice to link acceptance of the text of the Bible with rejection of evolution – is it not a “case in point”? In fact one could hardly ask for a more direct illustration of the 3SG 90-91 claims.
Certainly Darwin, Dawkins, Provine, Meyers and others have all gone on record admitting to the same conflict between evolutionism and the Bible.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentRe Bill’s Quote
“I would think by now you would at least have observed the strong convictions of both sides. How is it you can not see the irreconcilable and non-negotiable difference?
So, for some at least, your observation and exhortation is trite. At least pay attention before making such a comment.”
Dear Bill
I see and understand the differences my friend. It is not the differences but the treatment of those that hold honestly held different opinions that saddens me.
But you and Wes are right: any attempt by me to exhort any of you Christians or assume a morally superior position is false humility. I’m not a righteous person, I know that, but I’d like to be a better person if that is possible.
Sorry to offend.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
ken(Quote)
View Comment@ken:
Time for a poem, sigh, a break.
We’re of two mental venues, that’s that, I think.
That’s settled, so shake on it.
Let’s kiss and make up, like Newt and Mitt.
Wesley Kime(Quote)
View CommentKen, Thank you for bringing us back to the main point of discussion. I agree with you.
The Adventist church has gone through several “purges” in my lifetime. To me they are so evil and abusive that sometimes I am ashamed to be an Adventist. Previously I was too young and did not see what was happening until it was over. So I didn’t say anything. This time I am speaking up for tolerance.
Bill, This is the kind of mind reading that makes fundamentalism so dangerous. You project so much of your own thinking onto other people, and you make enemies where there were none before. For example earlier in the discussion I made a comment to the effect that I didn’t really care about the issues of the debate. Someone, you, Bob, or Faith, accused me of not believing creation is important. But you missed the whole point of what I was trying to say. It is not that I don’t think it is important what you believe, it is just that the beliefs under discussion are irrelevant to the point I am trying to make; about, what is the proper way to deal with people in the church who believe differently than the majority.
I see this tendency to “mind reading” to be a serious problem with conservatives. They are so sure they are right, that they can’t even conceive of other possibilities. How do you expect the Holy Spirit to be able to speak to you? If you can’t even listen with understanding to a simple human, how are you going to understand God?
Obviously you are happy with your faith. That’s fine, I am not trying to change anybody’s mind about their faith. What I am trying to do is to get the fundamentalists to leave a little room in the church for people like St. Thomas, who are loyal disciples, but still have a few questions.
What did Jesus say to do with the “tares” in the church? Weed them out? NO! He said to leave them alone! He said that the weeding would do more harm than good, and that has been sadly confirmed many times during my lifetime in the church. Look how Jesus handled Judas. Was Judas able to destroy Jesus mission because Jesus kept him as a disciple? Absolutely not. And so apostate (by fundamentalist definition) teachers and preachers will not stop the Adventist mission. We do not have to be afraid or defensive. Follow Jesus example and God will take care of it just as he promised.
Ron(Quote)
View CommentPerhaps, but I don’t think any Adventist acknowledges any of them as authorities, and as far as I can tell, they share the same either/or, black or white perspective on the issue as Mrs. White. I think both sides of that argument have failed.
There are much better ways to frame the discussion now, if anyone would be willing to stop and think a little.
Bob, the quote, 3SG 90-91 seems totally irrelevant to me until you address the issue of micro evolution. What is it? Is it the result of God’s continued active creation, is it passive creation meaning that God created the mechanisms which are now operating independently, or is it the result of “natural”/”a-theistic” processes?
Ron(Quote)
View Comment@ Wesley, I agree with you, but for me, being righteous includes being tolerant and respectful of others who don’t agree with me theologically.
Ron(Quote)
View CommentRe Wes and Ron’s Quotes
“Wesley Kime: it was about BEING righteous
@ Wesley, I agree with you, but for me, being righteous includes being tolerant and respectful of others who don’t agree with me theologically.”
Hi Ron
Although I’m not an expert in Kimean hermeneutics, I think what our wise friend Wes was alluding regarding riightgeous ‘BEING’ was only partially human. A CAPITAL double entendre.
Your admiring agnostic friend
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View CommentMack, I agree that the flood has multiple problems for YECs and YLCs, but geologists pretty much agree that there is substantial evidence for not one but two truly global floods, and according to their data the first nearly covered all of the continents at a time when no high mountains existed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Sea_Level.png
I’m not sure how YECs and YLCs would interpret the evidence for TWO major floods, but the often-repeated assertion by SDA intellectuals that there is no evidence for a worldwide flood is simply untrue.
Eddie(Quote)
View CommentRe Bill’s Quote
“Since you admit you don’t even know if there is a God or not, you certainly could not advise anyone on how they should deal with a situation concerning God and/or science. Could you?”
Hi Bill
Respectfully and humbly, I think I can. My advice is to use one’s own free will and conscience regarding God and be tolerant of others’ points of view.
As I am of yours Bill.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
ken(Quote)
View CommentI beg to differ – almost every SDA using any degree of objective thinking would recognize in that list – “authorities” on the subject of evolution-ism. This is not the rocket science you seem to imagine.
Ron:
as far as I can tell, they share the same either/or, black or white perspective on the issue as Mrs. White.
Now see? — That was not so hard to get after all. I am glad for that level of agreement on the obvious.
That’s easy – “Finch beaks changing shape in response to environment” – classic examples of “finches turning in to finches”.
Not at all the hyrax-to-horse storytelling of evolutionism much less the amoeba-to-horse stories or the bacteria-to-amoeba stories.
It is the “deny all” evolutionism known as “Theistic evolution” that is explicitly addressed in 3SG 90-91. How odd that you think that the subject of T.E does not apply here.
Is there something you have not told us?
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentMack, I agree that the flood has multiple problems for YECs and YLCs, but geologists pretty much agree that there is substantial evidence for not one but two truly global floods, and according to their data the first nearly covered all of the continents at a time when no high mountains existed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Sea_Level.png
I’m not sure how YECs and YLCs would interpret the evidence for TWO major floods, but the often-repeated assertion by SDA intellectuals that there is no evidence for a worldwide flood is simply untrue.
Eddie(Quote)
View CommentKen,
Of course you and Ron are “buddy, buddy”. Neither of you have any conviction of discipline for an evolutionist who wants to claim and be a SDA.
But there is no SDA evolutionist. To make such a claim is apostacy from Christanity in general and Adventism in particular.
What if a person would say, “I am a Christian, but I don’t believe in Christ?”
Or a Roman Catholic who would say, “I am a Roman Catholic, but I don’t believe in the Pope?”
It is absurd, isn’t it?
Some aspects of any denomination define the denomination and its adherents. So, no one can claim to be an SDA and still be an evolutionist. Absolutely impossible.
They are “nominal Adventists” at best. Meaning, they claim the name that denies their faith. There is no tolerance. They need to be shown the impossibility of their profession, and then be allowed to make a decision accordingly.
Either repent, or, be censored with the future possibility of being dis-fellowshipped. Better if they would just leave of their own free will, if they see no need to repent.
But far better yet, if they would see the error of their profession of faith and re-affirm the basic SDA teaching about origins.
Now I don’t expect this to happen any time soon. After all, we allow and even condon almost every form of the violation of God’s law with little or no discipline.
If individuals have little or no influence in the church, it would certainly be less offensive when they live and/or teach contrary to the church’s teachings. But they are often placed in high levels of influence and authority. Such as….
Sabbath school teacher.
Deacons.
Elders.
Pastors.
Sabbath school superintendents.
Church school teachers and administrators.
And of course, our colleges and Universities.
Now if a conservative and traditional SDA has any convictions of right and wrong, they will not be silent and no doubt will be accused of being “none loving” “intolerant” “judgmental” because they demand accountability.
And so Ken, do you think we would value your evaluation of what we should do, or how we should act and/or what course we should take in dealing with the present situation?
I for one, am aware you have no convictions of what is right or wrong concerning this theological issue. Since you admit you don’t even know if there is a God or not, you certainly could not advise anyone on how they should deal with a situation concerning God and/or science. Could you?
So, of course you would applaud Ron and any other liberal who wanted to avoid any confrontation and discipline.
I just don’t see your observation as being rational in light of the circumstances concerning your own faith, or lack of it.
Bill Sorensen
Bill Sorensen(Quote)
View CommentRe Bill’s Quote
“Since you admit you don’t even know if there is a God or not, you certainly could not advise anyone on how they should deal with a situation concerning God and/or science. Could you?”
Hi Bill
Respectfully and humbly, I think I can. My advice is to use one’s own free will and conscience regarding God and be tolerant of others’ points of view.
As I am of yours Bill.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
ken(Quote)
View CommentI beg to differ – almost every SDA using any degree of objective thinking would recognize in that list – “authorities” on the subject of evolution-ism. This is not the rocket science you seem to imagine.
Ron:
as far as I can tell, they share the same either/or, black or white perspective on the issue as Mrs. White.
Now see? — That was not so hard to get after all. I am glad for that level of agreement on the obvious.
That’s easy – “Finch beaks changing shape in response to environment” – classic examples of “finches turning in to finches”.
Not at all the hyrax-to-horse storytelling of evolutionism much less the amoeba-to-horse stories or the bacteria-to-amoeba stories.
It is the “deny all” evolutionism known as “Theistic evolution” that is explicitly addressed in 3SG 90-91. How odd that you think that the subject of T.E does not apply here.
Is there something you have not told us?
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentWe are debating evolutionist doctrine vs Christian doctrine on faith issue about origins and trust in the Bible vs trust in hyrax-to-horse stories.
I thought everyone knew that.
In Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentRon, with respect, it isn’t a question of leaving room for doubters. As I said in the post over at Spectrum that Bill Sorenson quoted, we are way beyond leaving room for non-believers who have personal cultural and family connections to the church. That these people can be members is simply not the issue.
The issue is whether the Seventh-day Adventist Church will retain her historic
doctrines and retain control over her institutions. As we have seen, the progressives are in control at La Sierra University and are teaching Darwinism as truth there, undermining historic Adventist beliefs. How many more institutions will be lost? That is the question. This has become a contentious civil war within the church.
A live and let live attitude sounds wonderful, but in reality when two mutually exclusive ideologies are warring, they each try to control. The progressives are trying very diligently to subvert traditionalist control over the institutions.
David Read(Quote)
View Comment@Ron, Regarding the “tares and wheat” parable, isn’t the “field” the WORLD and the reapers the ANGELS? How does that jibe with your analysis that the SDA Church should not separate those who outwardly preach and teach what is considered unbiblical doctrine?
Holly Pham(Quote)
View CommentAnd the “tares and wheat” is in no way a parallel to the church situation of today as Holly has pointed out.
Most people refuse to see the intensity of the church situation and the non-negotiable issues being discussed.
Historic Adventism is built on bible prophecy and the conclusion is a “system of truth” that is complete and harmonious. Our pioneers did not see the real import of the bible Sabbath until 1844 and its implications were discerned. It took awhile to put the pieces together, but each piece, like a picture puzzle, filled out a clearer picture of this non-negotiable system.
Remove one piece, and the whole system falls. So, EGW stated it this way…..
” The Key to a Complete System of Truth.–The subject of the sanctuary was the key which unlocked the mystery of the disappointment of 1844. It opened to view a complete system of truth, connected and harmonious, showing that God’s hand had directed the great advent movement, and revealing present duty as it brought to light the position and work of His people.–The Great Controversy, p. 423, (1888) {Ev 222.2}
Eyes Fixed on Sanctuary.–As a people, we should be earnest students of prophecy; we should not rest until we become intelligent in regard to the subject
223
of the sanctuary, which is brought out in the visions of Daniel and John. This subject sheds great light on our present position and work, and gives us unmistakable proof that God has led us in our past experience. It explains our disappointment in 1844, showing us that the sanctuary to be cleansed was not the earth, as we had supposed, but that Christ then entered into the most holy apartment of the heavenly sanctuary, and is there performing the closing work of His priestly office, in fulfillment of the words of the angel to the prophet Daniel, “Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.” {Ev 222.3}
Our faith in reference to the messages of the first, second, and third angels was correct. The great waymarks we have passed are immovable. Although the hosts of hell may try to tear them from their foundation, and triumph in the thought that they have succeeded, yet they do not succeed. These pillars of truth stand firm as the eternal hills, unmoved by all the efforts of men combined with those of Satan and his host. We can learn much, and should be constantly searching the Scriptures to see if these things are so. God’s people are now to have their eyes fixed on the heavenly sanctuary, where the final ministration of our great High Priest in the work of the judgment is going forward,–where He is interceding for His people.–Review and Herald, Nov. 27, 1883. {Ev 223.1}”
She changed nothing in reference to this statement throughout her lifetime. It is the heart and soul and foundation of bible Adventism and is non-negotiable.
Everything she wrote was in reference to this “system of truth”. Anyone who joins the SDA church should have been instructed in it. And if they could see no light in it, should never have been added to the church membership.
I am not suggesting that everyone must know every detail. But if any part of it is contrary to a person’s faith, they should not join the church until it is clear enough in its overview to be accepted and supported. Certainly not denied.
The Sabbath is so entwined in this system, that any denial of any part of it is to undermine and deny the Sabbath. And I think it is easily discerned by any thinking rational person, that if evolution is correct in its main and primary focus, the Sabbath is totally non-relevant and trivial.
And this would include the whole SDA denomination and reason for its existence, mission and purpose.
No true bible believing SDA will sit quietly by while liberals attack any part of our message, mission and purpose.
While EGW was alive, such individuals simply left the church, knowing it would impossible to remain and hope to convince anyone of their credibility as SDA’s. Today, they are applauded and supported as “progressive” and “open minded” and “highly enlightened” by more than a few, expecially those who hold position of influence, trust, and authority.
It will change. Exactly how, I don’t know. But I know it will change. And we better be ready for some very unpleasant experiences to say the least.
Bill Sorensen
Bill Sorensen(Quote)
View CommentThe meaning of the parable of the tares and wheat is that only God can judge the heart. Man cannot judge the inner motives of another. Thus when man takes it upon himself to judge the spirituality and conversion of others, he will sometimes get it it wrong. He will inevitably pull up wheat while meaning to uproot only tares.
I doubt whether the parable applies to situations in which a person, of his own volition, declares himself not to believe in the cardinal doctrines of the faith. Is the church obligated to treat someone who has freely confessed his own unbelief as though he were a brother in the faith? Doesn’t the person’s clear and explicit denial of faith obviate the need of anyone trying to judge his heart and inner motives?
David Read(Quote)
View CommentRe David’s Quote
“Doesn’t the person’s clear and explicit denial of faith obviate the need of anyone trying to judge his heart and inner motives?”
Hi David
Good question.
Isn’t this what the parable of the Good Samaritan is all about? That notwithstanding belief, helping one’s fellow man is of the highest moral, hence divine, order?
With respect, i think this why Christ is so appealing even to an apostate such as myself. The example he set does offer a living moral salvation for “all” mankind, not just a narrow subset with defined views – even if they are right!
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View Comment@Ken:
Morality, and therefore salvation, is independent of doctrinal knowledge. This does not mean that additional knowledge above and beyond what it takes to obey the moral law is irrelevant. Doctrinal knowledge, while not having the inherent power to save or make anyone “good”, does have the power to give people a solid hope or confidence in the future. It has the power to give people a sense of meaning and purpose to their lives and to make their lives better and more hopeful, more cheerful and more bearable, here and now.
This is the power of the Gospel Message or “Good News”. It is always nice to hear good news when your life is burdened by many trials and cares – even if there will be those who will be saved and live in Heaven someday who never had the blessing of living with the knowledge of this Good News while in this life.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentOh by the way -without any intent to minimilize the impact of Christ upon the world – I think folks like Mother Teresa, Gandhi, and the Dalai are wonderful, extraordinary human beings, perhaps inspired by the divine 🙂 , as well.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View Comment@Ken:
Indeed, but their lives could have been even better and brighter if they had had enhanced knowledge of God… as would be the case for us all.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentDear Wes
Thanks for not throwing out the agnostic baby with the divine water.
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View CommentRe David’s Quote
“A live and let live attitude sounds wonderful, but in reality when two mutually exclusive ideologies are warring, they each try to control. The progressives are trying very diligently to subvert traditionalist control over the institutions.”
Hi David
Alas, I am afraid you are right. Such is the history of man and religion is no exception. It is one of agnostic reasons I eschew formalized religion.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
ken(Quote)
View CommentThe parable of the Good Samaritan underscores the point that there is no need to drop all doctrine so that everyone can be a member of the SDA Church.
The standard of behavior is not limited to church members. The Golden Rule applies to everyone. You don’t have to be a member of the SDA Church for you to be my “neighbor” and for me, as a Christian, to be required to treat to you with self-sacrificing love. So being a member of my particular denomination doesn’t entitle you to a heightened standard of conduct from me. Christians owe a heightened standard of conduct to everyone.
Likewise, freedom of religion and disestablishment of religion mean that no civil advantage attaches to being a member of a particular denomination, nor does any civil disadvantage attach to not being a member. It is strictly a private matter.
So where is the urgency for the SDA Church to drop all of its doctrines so that no one will be barred from membership on account of not believing what Adventists believe? What’s the point?
The reality is that there are people who feel an emotional attachment to the church because they were raised in it and have family connections to it, and so they feel that they have a right to be on its membership roles, preaching in its pulpits, teaching in its classrooms, and sitting on its various governing boards, even though they may now be atheists or agnostics. It is hard to know where to begin to describe how ridiculous this is, and how aggressively obnoxious these people are.
If you’re no longer a believer, you do not belong as a member of the church, much less as a salary-drawing preacher, teacher or administrator. The Adventist Church is not a social club. It is a faith community, or more precisely, a community of shared faith. When you no longer share the faith, you don’t belong as a member of the community. You are always welcome as a guest, but it is incredibly arrogant and obnoxious of you to think that because you were raised in the church, your current beliefs (or non-beliefs), whatever they may be, are proper Adventist beliefs. They are not. The Adventist faith is derived from source documents, namely the Bible read straightforwardly and the prophetic writings of Ellen White. The Adventist faith is not whatever some cultural Adventist currently believes.
But that is the battle that is now being fought in the Adventist Church. A remarkably large number believe that Adventism is whatever cultural Adventists say it ought to be, regardless of the teaching of the source documents. The current struggle is over whether Adventism will continue to have a distinctive doctrinal content or whether it will simply be a social club.
David Read(Quote)
View CommentRe David’s Quote
“But that is the battle that is now being fought in the Adventist Church.”
Hi David
I enjoyed your comments, especially those about the universality of the Golden Rule.
It is not for me as an agnostic observer to take doctrinal sides in the battle within your church. It may well be that a schism is coming. If so I hope it can be amicable and all can abide by the Golden Rule.
Have a good Sabbath.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
ken(Quote)
View CommentSeems to be the fashion this election season to keep repeating the same message.
Likewise repeated everywhere and always, on this blog, happily, more graciously and politely than usual, is the message that Jesus is a nice teacher and role model just like Buddha, Gandhi, and Teresa, or EB and EG White, LSD Leary or Saul Alinsky. Fair tactic, no complaints.
So I shall exercise my equal-time prerogative, yea reiterate this site’s fundamental premise, and again declare our message, this time through the words of C.S. Lewis, who puts it most categorically, compellingly, articulately, admirably: “A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic – on the level with a man who says he is a poached egg – or he would be the devil of hell. You must take your choice. Either this was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us.” — C.S. Lewis, MERE CHRISTIANITY. If you’ve forgotten all that, read John again (e.g., John 4:26)
So, on, as we must, woe upon us, to our forthcoming Great Schism – “the hour is coming and now is,” to use the compelling way Jesus would put it, as in John 5:25. And on to Avignon, famous for, if nothing else, Chateauneuf de pape and eonic creation.
Wesley Kime(Quote)
View CommentRe Wes’s Quote
“Either this was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse.”
Hi Wes
There is another very viable option. That the depiction of Jesus by third parties was not accurate. Did his ardent followers try to create a divine being out of a remarkable man?
Your agnostic friend
Ken
ken(Quote)
View Comment@ken: “…either Son of God or else a madman or something worse.” “Did his ardent followers try to create a divine being out of a remarkable man?” If so, they, we, are madmen, something worse. And if they didn’t, to thus dismiss Him may be madness or something worse. Oh no, not Paschal’s Wager again…
Your believing friend, W
Wesley Kime(Quote)
View Comment@Wesley Kime: “Paschal”? imphetuousity may give sphontaniety but always missphelling, or something worse.
Wesley Kime(Quote)
View CommentAs David Read pointed out, the SDA church was not raised up to be a clearing house for every “Tom, Dick, and Harry’s” philosophy.
We have a specific and well defined message that is coherent, reasonable and biblical. And it is this fact that is being attack by a liberal element that claims the message is not coherent, reasonable nor biblical.
This difference creates a situation that can not be resolved by any compromise or some condescending unity. It creates a spiritual war that can and will divide the church. It is doing so, even now. But much more so in the future as the issues become more intense and defined.
Every single church member must necessarily become involved. Just as the first coming of Jesus created a simular situation with the Jews.
The conservative will not be persuaded by any exhortation about being “kind” “loving” and “non-judgmental”.
We are aware that these attributes, as important and necessary as they are to Christanity, are no excuse to ignore, patronize and even condon apostacy.
Any explanation of “love” that is not in perfect harmony with all the bible says about God and His kingdom is a false meaning and application of the word.
Jesus said, “If you love me, keep my commandments.” So the bible and all the teachings of the bible are “love” and anything less is not.
As love is explained today, it is some shallow cheap sentimental idea with no solid base to build on. The liberals use this word to defend apostacy and deny the faith. Once these principles are clearly defined, then the decision must be made as to whose side we will stand on.
If you are faithful to God and His word, you can be sure that you will be called unloving and a legalist. And a few more choice descriptions of your spirituality. By the world? Maybe. But more certainly by a church that has abandon the bible faith.
Bill Sorensen
Bill Sorensen(Quote)
View CommentIt is the classic logical fallacy of “either or” instead of “both-and”.
In this vanilla “either-or” gimmick you pretend that “either you keep SDA doctrine OR you choose to love your neighbor as in the good Samaritan illustration – but you should not try both”.
It is “proof by suggestion” on the part of the one making that “either or” argument.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentBob, I don’t know enough about finches to know if the bills are the result of selective breading or if it represents truly new genetic material. What I want to know is how you interpret th development of truly new genetics that have never existed in nature before like nylonase bacteria, or the genetics of the Tibetans. Is that the result of Gods activity or not? No tricks, it is an honest and simple question.
Ron(Quote)
View Comment@Ron:
I discuss the evolution of the nylonase enzyme as well as other truly novel examples of evolution in action (which you might find interesting) at:
http://www.detectingdesign.com/kennethmiller.html#Nylonase
In short, it is much easier (exponentially easier) to accidently discover a new beneficial 3-letter word in sequence space via some random search algorithm than it is to discover a more functionally complex system, like a new beneficial 7-letter word, in sequence space. With each additional minimum size and/or specificity requirement of the novel system in question, the evolvability of any novel system at that level of functional complexity decreases exponentially…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentReply to Bill Sorensen post of January 27, 2012
Bill. I agree with your comments 100% and I truly believe with all my heart that we are very near the “shaking time” and that the “final events” are closer than we even dream of. Things will only get worse before this battle between good and evil is over. Only those who are REALLY the “people of the Book” will go through the terrible times ahead of us and truly BEING among those “people” will require a lot more Bible study and dedication than most of us have today.
Keep on “posting!”
Lydian(Quote)
View CommentHi Ken,
I don’t know if this is the place where you asked how I was doing or not but since you are on every “conversation” on this web site I guess you will read this eventually.
The cast is off but I’m having a difficult time convincing this wrist that the “vacation” is over and its time for it to get “back to work!” I’m having physical therapy twice a week and it is improving some but not nearly as fast as I wish it was!
But I will survive and I AM making progress!
(I have a couple of local daughters that are “slave drivers” as far as making me take all the necessary exercises is concerned. (They keep reminding me of the “slave driver” I was
in years gone by when the tables were turned.) Oh well–that’s life, I guess!
Thanks a lot for your concern.
Lydian
Lydian(Quote)
View CommentVery good to hear from you Lydian!
Your agnostic friend
Ken
ken(Quote)
View CommentThose who are prayerfully watching the signs unfold according to the prophecies of scripture will clearly recognize that the end is near.
For those who wish or yearn to know and understand, it is a matter of consistent prayerful study on an individual basis. If you do this, you will KNOW. If you do not, then you will remain skeptic.
It is as it was in the day of Noah (assuming you believe there was a Noah, ect.)
Jesus is coming very soon. Be ready or be lost. It is a choice.
Charles(Quote)
View CommentThose who are prayerfully watching the signs unfold according to the prophecies of scripture will clearly recognize that the end is near.
For those who wish or yearn to know and understand, it is a matter of consistent prayerful study on an individual basis. If you do this, you will KNOW. If you do not, then you will remain skeptic.
It is as it was in the day of Noah (assuming you believe there was a Noah, ect.)
Jesus is coming very soon. Be ready or be lost. It is a choice.
Charles(Quote)
View CommentRe Wes’s Quote
“Either this was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse.”
Hi Wes
There is another very viable option. That the depiction of Jesus by third parties was not accurate. Did his ardent followers try to create a divine being out of a remarkable man?
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Ken, this is exactly why you would be classed with the liberal element in the church.
If your suggestion has any validity at all, we must conclude the whole bible is subject to the same conclusion.
We could not possibly know if any of it is a reliable source of revelation concerning who God is, what He did, or who we are, or what we should do. It would all be pure speculation with no certainty.
If you have any real desire to know and/or understand the bible, it doesn’t seem apparent in any of your posts. My evaluation of what I have read of your posting is this,….. You are an agnostic and proud of it.
You flaunt the confession as if you considered it a sign of superior intellect. And then find refuge in the idea that if there is a “god”, he will surely approve you since you claim “civil righteousness” as you “help” and “love” your neighbor.
But you have a bible, and I know by your posting that you have read at least some of it. Since your confession is that you don’t know if it is right or wrong, and since you admit it may be right, shouldn’t you worry just a bit that if it is right, you may well be lost?
Do you think by claiming “I don’t know.” it will let you off the hook, as it were, if the bible is true?
You seem to find comfort and assurance in claiming you are an agnostic. But the bible tells us “Christ is the light that lighteth every man the cometh into the world.”
Apparently, you deny this statement and claim you have no such enlightenment. Now no one can know exactly for a fact what another person may know or not know. But Paul’s words may have some relevant meaning in your situation.
“Be not deceived, God is not mocked.”
This means you can tell me and everyone else that you have no “enlightenment” to make a viable decision one way or the other. And we can not say otherwise. But we do know in the end, according to the bible, everyone has had adequate knowledge to make a viable decision and if they are lost, it is their own fault and they will not be able to plead ignorance for their lost condition.
As the professor asked his class, “What is the difference between ignorance and apathy?” And one student answered, “I don’t know, and I don’t care.”
“Precisely” was the professors response.
So, Ken, your confession of “I don’t know” may well be coupled with “and I don’t care.” Or maybe more accurately, “I don’t want to know.”
And if you come on a Christian forum and comment, you should expect to be chided and exhorted and hopefully encouraged to consider that any “I don’t know” won’t necessarily “get you off the hook” when it comes to the final judgment. In such case, you better learn to know and find out before it is too late.
I suspect and hope that like myself, at least some are praying for you who have read your posts. In some cases I close my post with “keep the faith”. In your case, I can only say,
“Find the faith, and then keep it.”
Bill Sorensen
Bill Sorensen(Quote)
View CommentRe Bill’s Quote
“But we do know in the end, according to the bible, everyone has had adequate knowledge to make a viable decision and if they are lost, it is their own fault and they will not be able to plead ignorance for their lost condition.”
Hi Bill
I plead no ignorance and hold myself 100% for the consequences of my agnosticism. Moreover I am as deeply convicted to my method of inquiry as you are to your faith.
Yes I have read the bible. Have you studied evolutionary biology?
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View CommentRe Wes’s Quote
“Did his ardent followers try to create a divine being out of a remarkable man?” If so, they, we, are madmen, something worse.
Hi Wes
Not madmen but perhaps culturally indoctrinated to your particular faith construct from a young age. Do you think you would have been an Adventist if your big tent experience at age 10 had happened in Tibet, India, Afghanistan ……? How much influence did Dr. Pitman’s pastor father have on his beliefs?
Perhaps if I had been raised as an Adventist, rather than an Angligan, i’d believe as you do. Perhaps…but I think the same questions I asked the Anglican minister would have been the same ones I would have asked an Aadventist pastor. And the answer would have been the same: have faith that our version of God is superior to the others.
Why?
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View Comment@Ken:
Chorus:
By genes and educated truth of irrevocably divergent venues
Are we, ordering our grits and pabulum from different menus,
Agree? Yet we both can have the last word here, believe it
Do we both. So let us say it again in unison: amen. So be it..
Wesley Kime(Quote)
View CommentHi Wes
Agreed, with respect and friendship.
Be well.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View Comment@Ken: amen
Wesley Kime(Quote)
View CommentDavid Read said to a poster on the Spectrum forum…..
“Adventist pastors and Administrators as rule do not criticize other Adventist pastors and administrators by name. It just isn’t done. Whether it should be done or not, it simply has not been the practice to publicly criticize by name.”
This is true, David, except when it is popular to attack some individual that they can get away with doing. Like Dr. Ford, or historically Brinsmead and/or other people who have no acceptable influence.
I only bring this up here because it represents the duplicity in the SDA church today. Which is one major reason there is so much trouble at LSU and other schools of learning.
Your discussion of the Moral Influence Theory with Jim, only highlights this duplicity as we all know who advocated it years ago, but was protected because of who he was. Namely, Graham Maxwell.
EGW never pulled any punches and named names again and again. Kellogg, Canright, Ballenger, and more than a few others by name who attack basic Christanity in general and Adventism in particular.
Now it is only acceptable if the person is not part of the “in” crowd in Adventism and if they are “in”, they are the “untouchables” by the church.
Maxwell was obviously one of these, another more recient person would be Morris Venden who is so “off the wall” on his theology, we could wonder how he ever got published by the church.
The point is, whether you are “in” or “out” will determine who you can attack and who you can’t publically.
By the way, The Moral Influence Theory is not wrong in what it affirms, it is only wrong in what it denies. The cross is a “moral influence” and we are “saved” by its influence as we are persuaded to give ourselves to Jesus in light of His love for us.
Sanctification is a part of salvation, and not just the “fruit of it.”
By the way, Jim’s concern is valid.
Bill Sorensen
Bill Sorensen(Quote)
View CommentTo criticize a pastor or Administrator publicly is to admit to a failure to manage internally. Failure to educate and ensure the right people are in the right positions with the right level of accountability.
When that internal system falls apart and you have a wild fire raging with no agreement internally on the right course of action – only then is the “last resort” option of public criticism a likely avenue. We saw that with LSU in a decades long process of management issues trying to deal with a problem and never really solving it.
I frankly do not want every misstep taking by this or that pastor or administrator published abroad. I would rather have a system of grace operating internally that allows for mistakes but still does not protect, ignore, prolong and sanction error promoted from our pulpits, writer’s desks and classrooms.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentI frankly do not want every misstep taking by this or that pastor or administrator published abroad. I would rather have a system of grace operating internally that allows for mistakes but still does not protect, ignore, prolong and sanction error promoted from our pulpits, writer’s desks and classrooms.
in Christ,
Bob
I agree, Bob. But we are not talking about a “misstep” or some management mistake. We are talking about basic fundamental doctrine and theology. And I know you agree with this.
Several years ago, Martin Weber, who is now the Mid America Outlook church paper editor, wrote a book entitled “Who’s Got the Gospel?” or something to this effect. He criticized 5 different theologies that he felt were not true as to how he, at least, did not preceive them.
The church was going to publish it, but Maxwell used his influence to keep this from happening. He eventually had it published by an outside source. He showed the error of Maxwell’s “Moral Influence Theory” so we see why Maxwell did what he did.
Weber also published several books years ago and one was called “Hot Potatoes” and “Hot Potatoes II” all dealing with issues in the church.
The church eventually shut him up by offering him a cushy job and eventually the editor of the Mid America paper.
When asked about his “Hot Potatoes” books, he responded “I am now an Adventist Sweet Potato.” Somebody asked me what I thought of his response.
I said, “He is now an Adventist couch potato” since they bought him off. It would seem the church is now about 90% politics with a little Christanity mixed in. When you try to build a denomination on the sole basis of unity and not sound doctrine and theology, it is certain you will finally end up with neither.
Today, the church has far less interest in what is true, and far more interest in unity. We are seeing the results of this philosophy. And none of us know exactly how it will turn out.
Maybe the “Big Bang” theory of evolution will come to the SDA church in spiritual matters. And it will all come together in perfect unity like the universe.
Well……maybe not? But it is about as likely. You know, like the chances are “slim and none?”
Bill Sorensen
Bill Sorensen(Quote)
View CommentRe Bill’s Quote
“It would seem the church is now about 90% politics with a little Christanity mixed in. ”
Hi Bill
This likely echoes the history and evolution of all religious institutions, which is one of the reasons that I eschew them. They are invented and controlled by the machinations of mankind who claim a franchise on God. This process will not stop as long as charismatic people seek power.
Those that make a living within them are not likely to challenge the status quo. Do you really think Ted Wilson is going to disfellowship all that progressive source of tithe funds?
Your agnostic friend
Ken
ken(Quote)
View CommentI just read that there are approximately 38,000 Christian denominations in the world. That means that the statistical probability for any specific one being exactly right in its theology is .003%
Just an observation.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
ken(Quote)
View CommentBill says, “By the way, The Moral Influence Theory is not wrong in what it affirms, it is only wrong in what it denies.”
That is exactly right, Bill. The problem with Maxwell’s atonement is not that it affirms moral influence but that it denies substitution. If you have substitution, then you also have moral influence, but if you don’t have substitution, then you don’t have moral influence either.
There’s nothing admirable about a person who throws himself in front of a bus and dies, but there is something very admirable about a man who pushes a child out of the way of bus, but is hit and killed himself. The former is just a suicide, but the latter is self-sacrificing love. The former is not morally influential, the latter is.
If Jesus did not have to die to accomplish the atonement, then it isn’t morally edifying that He allowed himself to be killed. But if Jesus did have to die to accomplish the atonement, then the fact that he allowed himself to die the death of the cross is tremendously moving and morally edifying.
Bill, the thing that worries me about you, Jim Roberts, and Kevin Paulson is that your faith plus works model of salvation seems to end by denying the substitutionary atonement. Evidence of this is in how Jim Roberts reacted to Elder Jackson’s sermon on substitutionary atonement. Instead of praising Jackson for going into the heart of Maxwell country and preaching on substitutionary atonement, Roberts immediately attacked Jackson for, apparently, failing to emphasize regeneration and obedience.
You guys are so hung up on works that you cannot recognize the astonishingly good news of the substitutionary death of Christ. You hear a sermon like Jackson’s and instead of saying “Amen!” you immediately start in attacking him for not addressing sanctification.
Everyone who reads “Educate Truth” knows that I don’t carry water for Dan Jackson. I was critical of him when he met with the La Sierra facility and apologized to them–and said that David Asscherick needed to be “spanked”—when what they needed to hear was that the church has doctrines that they are expected not to attack and undermine, and that when they do, there will be legitimate, justified concern about what they’re doing.
But there was nothing wrong with what Dan Jackson preached at La Sierra the other day. It was biblical truth, and truth that had been denied by an influential local theologian. He deserves praise for that sermon, not nitpicking.
David Read(Quote)
View CommentDavid Read said…..
“But there was nothing wrong with what Dan Jackson preached at La Sierra the other day. It was biblical truth, and truth that had been denied by an influential local theologian. He deserves praise for that sermon, not nitpicking.”
I agree, David, that we should applaud truth and those who advocate it. Maybe I have been at this too long…..
My observation of modern Adventism, maybe like Jim, is that for the last 40 years all we hear about is that no one has to keep the law to be saved, all we have to do is have faith in Christ.
While there is a biblical sense in which we do not keep the law to be saved, there is also a biblical sense in which we do.
To harp incessantly that we are saved by “faith alone” and not by works of the law, without a qualified biblical explanation of how we are justified by obedience to the law can only lead to the conclusion there is no biblical context in which we are justified by the law.
So, while I agree and believe in the vicarious substitionary atonement whereby Jesus had paid our debt, and bore the wrath of God in our behalf and now stands in the presense of God as our Substitute, Representative, and Surety, this will only be applied in the end to those who not on “Believe” this truth, but repent, and obey the law of God.
In the final judgment, the decision of whether you will be saved or not, is based on your Christian experience of obedience.
No one can “see” your faith, and God does not appeal to your faith as the evidence. While some liberals do embrace the MIT, the vast majority acknowledge the vicarious atonement and use it to undermine the human factor in salvation.
So, let me say this, the word “salvation” as used in the bible is far more comprehensive than is implied even in modern Adventism.
Today, people would throw their hands up in horror if anyone stated that you save yourself. But you do. The cross is worthless unless you respond in the way God has commanded and God can and will “force” anyone to it.
So, Dan Jackson can preach “the truth” in a limited way, just as the MIT peope do.
In the end, we are “saved” by the moral influence of the cross, just as much as by its value of a vicarious atonement.
EGW has well said….
Today the truths of Scripture are to be brought before the great men of the world in order that they may choose between obedience to God’s law and allegiance to the prince of evil. God sets everlasting truth before them–truth that will make them wise unto salvation, but He does not force them to accept it. If they turn from it, He leaves them to themselves, to be filled with the fruit of their own doings. {AA 241.2}
And this….
“It is Satan’s studied effort to divert minds from the hope of salvation through faith in Christ and obedience to the law of God.” Ibid 388
She makes many such comments that you won’t find in Adventist literature. We had a whole quarters lessons and this concept with a bible explanation is conspicuous by its absence.
The above quote is taken from EGW’s comments on the Apostacy in Galatia in Acts of the Apostles. And in this chapter, not once does she suggest that the issue was the moral law, but only and solely the ceremonial law. Why is that do you think?
Simply because the issue in Galatians was not the moral law as our bible lessons endeavored to convey. And this is no minor issue, it is the heart and soul of arguments made by Apostate Protestant denominations.
They also agree that it is the moral law, and if so, the law has been negated by the gospel and no other conclusion is possible.
Bill Sorensen
Bill Sorensen(Quote)
View CommentI too stated that elder Jackson had gone wayyy down the wrong road at LSU.
I have not heard Jackson’s sermon on atonement – but I certainly agree with argument for applauding him for anything he does get right after that stunt at LSU – anything along positive lines is very welcomed.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentIndeed — if religion were just a matter of “rolling dice” we would be having a different conversation entirely.
And the “odds against you ” detail above – is all the more reason to adopt an objective exegetical approach to the text – rather than the “bend the text to the usages of evolutionism” ideas some of our T.E. friends seem so fond of these days.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentCushy Job?? are you talking about “New Hope” or Ministry?
I remember the good ol’ days wen Goldstein, Weber and I used to have our weekly lunches at that Italian place… as I recall – it was “I” who was labeled the card-carrying legalist.
Martin held up the social conservative POV and Clifford the theological conservative POV. I tended to argue the conservative side of whoever was taking the conservative side — social or theological.
(I thought of myself as “Middle of the road” as a result.)
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentOops…….This is what I said…..
“The cross is worthless unless you respond in the way God has commanded and God can and will “force” anyone to it.”
The fact is, God will NOT force anyone to do it. My bad.
A final comment. The Moral Influence Theory is a diversion that few will be deceived by in the end. And even the discussion of evolution vs. creation is a side issue the devil has created while he works continually to build his final deception.
His work is to undermine the law of God and will use more than a few subtle tactics to accomplish his goal. Diversion works well.
Kind of like the antichrist sets up a false antichrist and then pretends to expose the false antichrist and “while men slept, the enemy sowed tares.”
So, Dan Jackson and many other preachers and teachers applaud the vicarious atonement while undermining the law with an easy believeism claiming Jesus did everything, and we do nothing. All this supposedly to glorify God and praise Him while all the time, undermining God’s kingdom.
Here is EGW’s comment about Dan Jackson and his theology…..
“There is hope for every one of us, but only in one way—by fastening ourselves to Christ and exerting every energy to attain to the perfection of His character. This goody-goody religion that makes light of sin, and that is forever dwelling upon the love of God to the sinner, encourages sinners to believe that God will save them while they continue in sin and know it to be sin. This is the way that many are doing who profess to believe present truth. The truth is kept apart from their life, and that is the reason it has no more power to convict and convert the soul. There must be a straining of every nerve and spirit and muscle to leave the world, its customs, its practices, and its fashions. . . . {CTr 81.2}”
Hello? What did she say……?
“There must be a straining of every nerve and spirit and muscle to leave the world, its customs, its practices, and its fashions.”
Did you ever hear a sermon by Dan Jackon or any other liberal preacher or teacher build a sermon on this concept?
I think not. But…..you be the judge.
Bill Sorensen
Bill Sorensen(Quote)
View CommentNo one is justified by obedience to the law. Whoever does not break the law doesn’t need justification, but so far no one but Christ ever has perfectly obeyed the law. So if I am not justified through faith in Christ, I’m not going to be justified, I’m going to be lost eternally. Even if I keep the law perfectly from here on out, it will not save me. I will always need the atonement of Christ. The goal of he Christisn life is to rely less and less on imputed righteousness, and more and more on imparted righteousness. But no one is justified by works, or by obedience to the law.
David Read(Quote)
View CommentSean, your logic escapes me. You have a pretty long and detailed explanation of how evolution works, even to point out that there are “470 examples (of new genes by this process) in humans alone”, then in the last paragraph, you say that evolution can’t do what you just got done explaining it does. . . Huh?
But anyway, you side stepped my question. We both agree that this is an example of evolution.
My question is, what role does God play in the process? Is God directing it, or is this an “a-theistic” process?
(Bob, This is a long thread, so if you answered my question I can’t fing it. Can you repeat it?)
Ron(Quote)
View Comment@Ron:
How is it confusing to suggest that the greater a level of functional complexity the exponentially more difficult it is to evolve anything at that level?
Evolution at very low levels of functional complexity (less than a few hundred specifically arranged amino acid residues) is easily achieved in very short periods of time because of the statistical odds of the success of a random search algorithm (like random mutations in DNA or protein sequence space) are very good at this level in large populations.
Since you brought it up, consider that nylonase, in particular, is a single protein enzyme that requires a minimum of no more than 355 averagely specified aa residues. Evolution at such a low level of functional complexity is very commonly and rapidly achieved. There are thousands of observed examples of evolution in action at this level of complexity and lower. However, as one moves up the ladder of functional complexity, such examples drop off exponentially. When you reach the level of 1000 specifically arranged aa residues, there are no examples of evolution in action in literature at all – none. Why not?
The reason for this exponential decline in evolutionary potential within a given span of time at higher and higher levels of functional complexity has to do with the odds of success of a random non-directed search algorithm. The success of such algorithms is dependent upon the ratio and distribution of potentially beneficial sequences in sequence space. As it turns out, this ratio declines, exponentially, with each increase in the minimum size and/or specificity requirement for a given level of functional complexity.
In short, what this means is that Darwinian-style evolution is possible, this side of a practical eternity of time (like trillions upon trillions of years) for novel biosystems that have a minimum structural threshold requirement of less than 1000 specifically arranged amino acid residues. For such low-level systems to be realized in a given population of living things, the involvement of intelligent design is not directly needed. However, when you start talking about higher level systems beyond the 1000aa threshold level of complexity, intelligent design is required to explain their origin.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View Comment“Martin held up the social conservative POV and Clifford the theological conservative POV.”
Well, I think Weber went through transition like we all do, Bob.
I doubt he holds the same theological views and philosophy he did 20 years ago. He was more conservative then. So, like I said, he was bought off for a few pieces of silver.
He never writes a view point in the paper where he is not attacking the traditional SDA church calling every conservative a “legalist”. In one article, he lamented that his poor old mother had to leave the SDA church and fellowship in a Lutherean church to find “love” and fellowship.
The people were so cold and non-loving, she had to go else where. All this to undermine historic Adventism and opt for his liberal theology. He incessantly and constantly pushes women elders in almost every issue.
Maybe you still know him and talk with him. He is not the Martin Weber of the past, and he would probably agree and be proud of it.
Bill Sorensen
Bill Sorensen(Quote)
View CommentDavid Read said…..
“No one is justified by obedience to the law. Whoever does not break the law doesn’t need justification, but so far no one but Christ ever has perfectly obeyed the law. So if I am not justified through faith in Christ, I’m not going to be justified, I’m going to be lost eternally. Even if I keep the law perfectly from here on out, it will not save me. I will always need the atonement of Christ. The goal of he Christisn life is to rely less and less on imputed righteousness, and more and more on imparted righteousness. But no one is justified by works, or by obedience to the law.”
David, this is the classic response in modern Adventism that denies huge portions of the bible that affirm again and again that we are “justified by obedience to the law.”
Pauls says clearly, “The doers of the law shall be justified.” and the whole book of James affirm justification by obedience to the law.
You limit the word “justification” to pardon. And of course, this is how Paul often uses the word. But the bible uses the word “justification” in a far more comprehensive way than many if not most in the church do today.
So, just one question, How do you harmonize your understanding with this quote by EGW? And there are many more like it…..
“It is not essential to understand the precise particulars in regard to the relation of the two laws. It is of far greater consequence that we know whether we are justified or condemned by the holy precepts of God’s law. {WB, September 9, 1902 par. 6}”
And this one…..
” It would be far more consistent for nations to abolish their statutes, and permit the people to do as they please, than for the Ruler of the universe to annul his law, and leave the world without a standard to condemn the guilty or justify the obedient. Would we know the result of making void the law of God? The experiment has been tried. Terrible were the scenes enacted in France when atheism became the controlling power. It was then demonstrated to the world that to throw off the restraints which God has imposed is to accept the rule of the cruelest of tyrants. When the standard of righteousness is set aside, the way is open for the prince of evil to establish his power in the earth. {GC88 584.1}”
The function of any law is to justify or condemn. And this function of the moral law has not been set aside because of the gospel.
No unbeliever can be justified by the law, for no unbeliever is in Christ. But to claim a Christian can not be justified by the law is just not biblical, nor is it even reasonable.
Bill Sorensen
Bill Sorensen(Quote)
View CommentDavid Read and Bill:
I posted this quotation below awhile back, (Jan 19 @ 10 PM) but I think it is appropriate to the current conversation. I would recommend that all the quotations I posted regarding the law should be revisited above, but I repost this one as it is the most appropriate to the topic under discussion.
I believe what Bill and others such as myself are afraid of is an unbalanced view of salvation. It was once explained to me like this: Salvation is like a rowboat with two oars, one being faith in Christ’s sacrifice on the cross for you and one your own works. If you try to use only one oar, you will wind up going in circles and getting nowhere.
I have heard many theories on salvation and its relationship to the law. One is that all we have to do is accept Christ as our Saviour and we will keep the law as a natural outcome–we don’t even have to make an effort to do it. I don’t believe that for one second. We are to work out our own salvation, we are told in Timothy. EGW explains this text as meaning we have our part to play in our salvation. I fully agree with her. None of us can keep the law on our own, but we have to make an effort and then ask God to do the rest. Read the quotation below. She specifically says that there is more to it than to just say, “I believe.”
When ministers preach the message of Salvation they need to address both sides of the question or people are misled into believing either we work our own way to heaven or we don’t have to keep the law. Neither of these statements is true. They are Satan’s way of funnelling off the followers of Christ into the wrong paths and thereby lose out on salvation altogether.
We need Christ’s sacrifice as well as rendering obedience to His law in order to be saved. That is the Adventist stance I have grown up on and it is being attacked by people such as Morris Vendon, who wrote a book called ‘Love God and Do as You Please’ which is absolute heresy. It directly contradicts the Bible when it says, “If you love Me, keep My commandments.”
Self needs to decrease and God needs to increase in our lives if we expect to be saved into His kingdom, where the commandments will be kept by all.
Faith(Quote)
View CommentRe Bob’s Quote
“And the “odds against you ” detail above – is all the more reason to adopt an objective exegetical approach to the text – rather than the “bend the text to the usages of evolutionism” ideas some of our T.E. friends seem so fond of these days.”
Hi Bob
Or bend the text so the 144,000 folks seen in EGW’s vision are symbolic rather than literal, or turn 2300 days into 2300 years, or to objectively predict the commencement of the Investigative Judgement on October 22, 1844…..right Bob. 🙂
Whole pile of bending going on!
Your agnostic friend
Ken
ken(Quote)
View CommentRe Sean’s Quote
“Indeed, but their lives could have been even better and brighter if they had had enhanced knowledge of God… as would be the case for us all.”
Hi Sean
Agreed, but who knows that we don’t? 🙂
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View Comment@Ken:
Unless one of us has already reached perfection, there is always room for improvement or “enhanced knowledge of God” – wouldn’t you agree? 😉
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentRe Sean’s Quote
“Morality, and therefore salvation, is independent of doctrinal knowledge. ”
Hi Sean
I like that concept and hope that is it true. But perhaps I can take it a bit further. Irrespective of religious belief isn’t living a moral life the greatest good one can achieve on earth. Isn’t service to mankind instead of one’s own selfish needs of the highest order? And if everyone practiced that instead of focusing on being exclusively right wouldn’t the world be a better place?
For me this was the wonderful wisdom of the lesson of the Good Samaritan that remains with me to this day. Love thy neighbour as thyself. Beautiful. Love thy neighbour more than thyself. Sublime.
You see I think one can find grace and personal salvation in how you live your everyday life. A moral life is a difficult task and one must avoid self righteousness and constantly scrutinize one’s motives. Wash the feet of others indeed! But wash them all, not only those in one’s little club. I’m a long way from that ideal but I believe in trying without any other reward than knowing it is the right thing to do. The hereafter is not my concern, the here and now is.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View Comment@Ken:
Yes, one can live a moral life according to the Royal Law of Love because God has written this moral law on the hearts of all mankind. Loving one’s neighbor at the cost of personal sacrifice is the very essence of God’s nature and therefore of the Law.
The Good Samaritan may not have known as much about doctrinal truth as the Jews, and leaders of the church of that day, who passed by without helping one of their own who was injured and in need, but it was evident that he was listening to and following the Royal Law that was written on his heart. Because of this, he was recognized by God as being more righteous than those who did have access to greater doctrinal knowledge or truths about God, but without any apparent effect on their actions of love toward their fellow man.
It is for this reason that knowledge, by itself, is not what makes a person good or bad. It is motive that really counts when it comes to morality and salvation. The only good that enhanced knowledge bring to the table is that knowledge has the power to bring hope to those who are suffering and dying in this world – to make their lives better here and now.
Such knowledge, if combined with love for one’s fellow man, will cause one to strive for more and more knowledge so as to more and more effectively minister to the needs of one’s fellow man…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentDear Faith
I just read your treatise on salvation and really enjoyed it. Loved the metaphor about the two oars. 🙂
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View CommentOur pastor made a distinction recently that really made the whole faith and works, justification/sanctification, clear for me.
He spoke of God’s ideals, and God’s standards. The ideals are perfect and God will accept nothing less that perfection as an ideal. That is the unreachable star by which we guide our lives. They are expressed in God’s perfect law.
God’s standards are the minimum required to be accepted and loved by God. As we see from many stories in the Bible (Mary Magdalene, Ahab, Saul the murderer), God’s minimum standard is very low. Basically, you have to exist and to be breathing for God to love you. God loves you and accepts you just where you are, but at the same time, he points you toward the ideal and encourages you to take one more step in that direction.
I think that is justification and sanctification in modern language that I can understand.
Ron(Quote)
View CommentAmen Brothers Sean and Ron
Your hearts are in exactly the right place.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
ken(Quote)
View CommentRe Sean’s Quote
“Unless one of us has already reached perfection, there is always room for improvement or “enhanced knowledge of God” – wouldn’t you agree? ;-)”
Hi Sean
Wholeheartedly. In my case the room is so big I find myself walking around in circles a lot! 🙂
Your agnostic friend
Ken
ken(Quote)
View CommentRe Ron’s Quote
“He spoke of God’s ideals, and God’s standards. The ideals are perfect and God will accept nothing less that perfection as an ideal. That is the unreachable star by which we guide our lives. They are expressed in God’s perfect law.”
Hi Ron
This is the essence of Platonic Idealism that had a profound effect upon me when I studied it as a first year university student. I’ve referenced the link below for you.
http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/Archives/Plato%20And%20The%20Theory%20Of%20Forms.htm
Your agnostic friend
Ken
ken(Quote)
View Comment@ken:
That was a very nice presentation. It helped make Plato’s idea much more accessible for me. I am not sure of the conclusion, that just because the ideal of a leaf (or of a Ron)is eternal, that eternity necessarily lasts forever.
It seems to me that what Plato called eternal, we call conceptual. It seems to me that the eternal/conceptual, only lasts as long as there is some material object, i.e. a human brain to conceive. This would go along with what my professors told me, that in the Bible, eternity is not a length of time, but a state of being.
That said, without denying the traditional understanding of the Bible there is a sense in which the whole of the Bible story is fulfilled in my life in the here and now such that even if our traditional understanding were not true, and there never was a literal Second Coming, the Bible would still be true in my life. Here is an example that might help.
With the exception of the Tree of Life, everything that was in the Garden of Eden is still here in this world. Many people are so overwhelmed by the evil in the world that they don’t see it. Since Jesus came into my life (the second coming, where he comes to get me personally, and takes me to live with him) and I was born again, my eyes were opened, and I now live a perfect life in Eden restored.
Basically, I have a choice. I can, and sometimes do, live in hell, or I can chose to live in heaven. Most of the time, I prefer to live in heaven.
If I understand the Bible in this way, then it is directly observable to me, and I don’t really have to worry about whether the creation story, or the second coming are literal events. I hope, and chose to believe they are, but in the hypothetical case that they aren’t, then I am not disappointed, because the promise has already been fulfilled in my current life.
Ron(Quote)
View CommentI guess the illustration used by SDA evangelists of days gone by is still as applicable now as then.
If you are caught speeding 90 in a 65 zone, you must pay the fine, (or have someone else do it for you) to be “justified”. This is how the negative side of the law is satisfied.
So, are you then free to drive 90 and continue to be justified?
No, you must obey the law or the pardon is simply not worth anything, as the penalty is applied again and again.
The law justifies those who obey it, and condemns those who don’t.
Paul is dealing primarily with pardon, James is dealing with the Christian obligation to obey the law. But today, Paul is used to negate the Christian obligation to obey the law to be justified.
Any lawyer who understands the purpose of “law” would easily and readily understand and see the point.
Apparently, modern SDA theologians have been so duped by the devil, and intimidated by apostate Protestantism, they can’t simply admit we must obey the law to be justified.
Our last quarters lesson are classic of how “faith alone” has been wrested not only from the use by historic Protestantism, but far from how the bible explains “justification.”
And EGW is totally ignored because they can not harmonize their view with hers.
Here is the quote Faith refered to…..
“If we are faithful in doing our part, in cooperating with Him, God will work through us [to do] the good pleasure of His will. But God cannot work through us if we make no effort. If we gain eternal life, we must work, and work earnestly. . . . Let us not be deceived by the oft-repeated assertion, “All you have to do is to believe.” Faith and works are two oars which we must use equally if we [would] press our way up the stream against the current of unbelief. “Faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.” The Christian is a man of thought and practice. His faith fixes its roots firmly in Christ. By faith and good works he keeps his spirituality strong and healthy, and his spiritual strength increases as he strives to work the works of God. [REVIEW AND HERALD, JUNE 11, 1901.] {NL 38.2}
Salvation is not a one concept proposition. Simply because two seperate minds are involved, God’s and ours. And both parties must agree to do their part.
God forgives our sins, and we return to obedience to His law. And this is “justification” in the biblical context.
Bill Sorensen
Bill Sorensen(Quote)
View Comment