@Ken: I do think however that Science, not necessarily any …

Comment on Why the Bible? by Sean Pitman.


I do think however that Science, not necessarily any one individual scientist not subject to correction, is the best objective tool for looking at Reality. And if Reality is the work of a Creator/God, perhaps the best tool for understaning the nature of same.

I agree, obviously, with this statement – with the caveat that “science” is not defined by what popular scientists generally believe at any given point in time or that science is somehow entirely objective or independent of the requirement to make “leaps of faith” to one degree or another…

Sean Pitman

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Why the Bible?

I’m not an atheist, never have been. How can one have that degree of certitude in light of the fact one the universe exists without an explanation for first cause. But I do not that all religions change as time moves forward.

As a very unusual non-standard “agnostic” who believes that the existence of God is “likely” (given theistic arguments from first cause), obviously you’re not an atheist. It seems that although you believe that the existence of some kind of God is likely (contrary to the very definition of an agnostic), you are unsure, or truly agnostic, with regard to the particular character or nature of this God.

While views of God do indeed change over time, history does not change. The Bible, as a very ancient historical narrative, has demonstrated itself to be extraordinarily stable and reliable over very long periods of time as a true account of historical events – even miraculous events. Given the demonstrated accuracy of the Bible regarding discoverable history, this should give one pause regarding the Bible’s claims as to the nature of God as well. That is my own position in any case.

For example, it appears there may be a reformation afoot regarding the amendment of FB # 6. Is this God’s work or Man’s work? How does one distinguish who is inspired by God vs. their own personal views? And ultimately who controls the levers of power ( who will appoint the committee and voting members at the GC) to vote upon any change?

“By their fruits you will know them.” – Matthew 7:20

It is one thing to demonstrate that a particular event or phenomenon requires superhuman creativity and/or power. It is another thing to demonstrate that this Power is Divine or ultimately Good – as one would expect from the Christian-style God.

God’s work may seem to stumble and fall for a time, but God’s work, as strikingly demonstrated in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, is always ultimately successful.

Sean Pitman

Why the Bible?
@Hubert F. Sturges:

I don’t like the word “magic” to describe the supernatural acts of God. The supernatural is very different from magic. Such acts are always very practical and necessary to the situation at hand.

And Faith wrote:

I agree with Mr. Sturges. That word, as well as the word “fairytales”, has been bothering me ever since I first read the above article. I have been trying to figure out how to express my thoughts without hurtiing Sean’s feelings, but I believe it is important to differentiate between the “magic” that Satan and his agents practice and the miracles that God works.

I am well aware of and sympathize with these concerns and even considered them before I wrote this article. However, you must understand that I was writing from the perspective of someone approaching the Bible for the first time – before one becomes aware of its truly Divine origin. From this perspective, many of the stories would at first appear to be quite magical or like a fairytale indeed (in the best most innocent children-story sense of the words).

I know that there is a difference between the Satanic magical arts (and I’m not talking about illusionists or card tricks here) and truly Divine miracles. However, for the average person who is not aware of the distinction, who first starts considering the claims of the Bible, the miracles described in the Bible would appear, at first approximation, to be very similar to what is generally referred to as “magic” or to nothing more than made up fairytales for children. How then does one end up telling the difference? That’s the question I’m asking here.

In any case, please do consider the context and intended perspective of my argument, as well as my conclusion that there is a very clear and evident difference between the Bible and fairytales or moral fables as well as between the miracles or “magic” that Satan is able to produce. The Bible is so far beyond any of these as to be clearly Divine in origin for anyone who considers and researches it carefully and with an open candid mind.

Sean Pitman

Why the Bible?
@Bill Sorensen:

If science gives some credibility to scriptural declarations, it is well and good. But science can not and will not supercede the bibles testimony concerning itself and its validity and authority.

It is through science, or scientific/rational thought, that the credibility of the Bible’s claims concerning itself, to include it’s prophetic claims, can be determined. The credibility of Biblical prophecy is based on the historical sciences. If Biblical prophecy was shown, as is the case for many other books claiming to be prophetic, to be completely inaccurate or too vague to be statistically useful with regard to known historical science, the credibility of prophecy as a basis for determining the Divine origin of the Book would be undermined. The Biblical claim to be The Word of God would be effectively falsified.

It is for this reason that the “higher critics” of the Bible try valiantly to undermine the concept of Biblical prophecy, arguing that the most striking prophecies of the Bible, especially those written by Daniel, were actually written far far after the historical predictions prophesied. They do this from a humanistic mindset in order to challenge the Bible’s claim to Divine origin… in an effort to effectively falsify this claim.

The potential for effective Biblical falsification alone is what puts the Bible, and no other faith really, into the realm of science and/or rational thought. Christianity need not be based on blind faith because the Bible itself actually strives to appeal to the intelligent candid mind with regard to the credibility of its own claims to Divine origin. One does not need to turn off one’s higher God-given reasoning powers when approaching the Bible and it’s fantastic claim to be the Word of God.

Again, the Bible is not “self-validating” as nothing can validate itself without any reference to the external realities to which it speaks…

Sean Pitman

Recent Comments by Sean Pitman

After the Flood
Thank you Ariel. Hope you are doing well these days. Miss seeing you down at Loma Linda. Hope you had a Great Thanksgiving!

The Flood
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…

The Flood
Only someone who knows the future can make such decisions without being a monster…

Pacific Union College Encouraging Homosexual Marriage?
Where did I “gloss over it”?

Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
I fail to see where you have convincingly supported your claim that the GC leadership contributed to the harm of anyone’s personal religious liberties? – given that the GC leadership does not and could not override personal religious liberties in this country, nor substantively change the outcome of those who lost their jobs over various vaccine mandates. That’s just not how it works here in this country. Religious liberties are personally derived. Again, they simply are not based on a corporate or church position, but rely solely upon individual convictions – regardless of what the church may or may not say or do.

Yet, you say, “Who cares if it is written into law”? You should care. Everyone should care. It’s a very important law in this country. The idea that the organized church could have changed vaccine mandates simply isn’t true – particularly given the nature of certain types of jobs dealing with the most vulnerable in society (such as health care workers for example).

Beyond this, the GC Leadership did, in fact, write in support of personal religious convictions on this topic – and there are GC lawyers who have and continue to write personal letters in support of personal religious convictions (even if these personal convictions are at odds with the position of the church on a given topic). Just because the GC leadership also supports the advances of modern medicine doesn’t mean that the GC leadership cannot support individual convictions at the same time. Both are possible. This is not an inconsistency.