@George: Bob, I’m not trying to fight belief in creation or …

Comment on A little-known history about Belief 6 by BobRyan.

@George:

Bob,

I’m not trying to fight belief in creation or support belief in evolution. I’m trying to advocate for the core of the Gospel and tolerance of other differences.

It seems to me that John 1 is primarily talking about the origin of Jesus. He links Jesus to the concept of the Word, or Logos, that was prevalent in the Greco-Roman culture of the day. The story of the Word becoming flesh in the form of Jesus was kind of a new concept at the time.

In John 1 – Jesus IS God in human flesh.
In John 1 – it is affirmed that NOTHING has come into being apart from His creative act.

In John 1 it is affirmed that the WORLD was MADE by him

In John 1 – the role of Christ as CREATOR is the context and foundation for his work as savior.

The proposal that we toss what God’s Word says about His work as creator out the window — and then call the rest of it “gospel”, significantly underestimates the scope, urgency and solution found in the Gospel of our salvation.

John was helping people see that the concept of Logos that they already understand was actually a partial truth that is made clear by the Gospel of Jesus. It seems to me that the phrase “Through Him all things were made” works with or without a literal 6-day creation.

If we deleted the rest of the Word of God – you would be right.

But John 1 is written in the context of the “scriptures” of the OT already being accepted as the “scriptures” of NT saints. That is the context for John’s letter – and exegesis does not allow us to toss it out the window.

Given that context – John is arguing that the creation doctrine on origins is foundational to understanding the Gospel itself. And so he begins his Gospel with that very focus.

It is true that Paul writes against those that are preaching a gospel different than what he taught. In Galations, Paul is primarily writing against the Judaizers, who are preaching that people must keep the laws of Moses to be a real Christian and to be saved. (Am I getting that right?) In the current creation/evolution dialog, who is requiring that we hold on to ancient requirements of God in order to be true Adventists,

Actually I think you missed that one. Paul is not arguing in Gal 1:6-11 that “Scripture is bad” and that “now we have something new for you”. Paul argued from the beginning (as we see in Rom 3:31) that the NT Christian faith “establishes the Law of God”. His argument is not “ignore scripture because now we have better ideas to give you”. Rather as we see in Acts 17:11 the NT saints “studied the scriptures DAILY to see IF those things spoken to them by Paul WERE SO”

The idea that accepting God as Creator JUST as the Word of God presents Him – is now “a bad thing” is an idea that divides up the Bible into “Good Bible” vs “Bad Bible” sections. Something that the Adventist church has been against from day 1. And it is not supported in either NT or OT.

and who is advocating for promotion of the core of the Gospel and tolerance of diversity?

The core of the gospel – cannot escape the John 1 “foundation” for the Gospel which has to do with the Role of Christ as CREATOR.

You are right that the Bible teaches that humanity is fallen. Genesis tells a story of how that fall happened. As a sinful person, I know I need help, and Jesus is that help. I don’t necessarily need to understand how my ancient ancestors got us into this situation. I care about my own story

Indeed and if you were the one authoring and inspiring the text of scripture – perhaps you would not have made the ORIGINS doctrine foundational to the first 2 chapters of the Bible and foundational to the Gospel of John and foundational to the Worship of God as we see in Rev 14.

I grant you that – had you been sitting in His chair – and given your preference as stated above – you probably would have chosen another focus.

But this is not actually about “rewriting the Bible” or “editing what is written” is it?

So as interesting as that thought is – the substantive point is that God chose not to go the direction that you have shown a preference for –

Makes a good comparison and contrast I suppose – but not much else we can do with that.

The Bible also teaches that there is hope, there is a brighter future. As Adventists we believe in the concept of progressive truth and progressive revelation. Through history God has revealed more and more about himself so that we can better understand Him. There is a kind of upward growth through Abraham, Moses, Hezekiah, Josiah, Ezra, the Gospels, Paul, Martin Luther, William Miller, and Ellen White.

True. Which is why we think of 3SG 90-91 as something to be noticed and respected for what it is – rather than “tossed under the bus” (as some would say).

And there by divine revelation – we see the point made that evolutionism as a religion when taken into the soul and accepted — is poison to foundational truths clearly revealed in God’s Word.

And I think that is a key point to remember as context for that discussion.

in Christ,

Bob

BobRyan Also Commented

A little-known history about Belief 6
I think it is interesting that it was the corrupt leadership of the Jews at the time of Christ – and to some extent the wide wild singing popular support for them at times – the determined the fate of the Jewish nation.

Those who hijack leadership roles in a given conference or union in areas of education, administration etc in the SDA church just so they can introduce error – can only survive and prosper in that role as long as there are enough people who will “do nothing” to stop it in their local conference.

That is why I am glad the Michigan conference leaders had the leadership initiative and vision to take a stand and let the chips fall where they may.

in Christ,

Bob


A little-known history about Belief 6

Ken: Might I humbly suggest that today of all days is not a day for internecine dispute but rather for peace and love.

Merry Christmas

indeed – today is the day that we celebrate the birth of the Messiah (the Christ). “God with Us”.

The incarnation of God Himself — who chose to step off of the throne of the universe and become an infant born to Mary – sent to save the world. A world that welcomed him by trying to kill all the baby boys two years old and under in the vicinity of his birth in an effort to kill him.

God – our Creator decided that “salvation at any cost” – no matter the price – was worth it to save mankind. And Christ said in Matt 10 that those who freely choose that path of salvation must “take up their cross and follow Me”.

This is a world where Satan has obtained the cooperation of man in many respects.

The Angels of heaven said on that day “Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace good will toward men”. Luke 2

And yet another angel from heaven say in Rev 12:12 regarding the fact that Christ was winning the war against Satan — “Woe to those who dwell on the earth for the devil has come down to you knowing that he has but a short time”.

Even Christ Himself said in Matt 10 “do not think that I have come to bring peace – I have not come to bring peace but a sword” Matt 10.

Christ was referring to the fact that Satan – as the “god of this world” 1Cor 4:4 is at war against our Creator and leads as many of mankind as will – to follow his directions – whether wittingly or unwittingly.

in Christ,

Bob


A little-known history about Belief 6

BobRyan: I am wondering if some over at the spec of truth board – are suggesting that being employed by the SDA church and consuming SDA tithe, offering and gift dollars is a “basic right” of hindus, atheists and evolutionists – such that any denial of their demands in that regard is a “civil penalty” being applied?

Time will tell if they are trying to make that case.

Frankly I doubt that we will see a rush for employment applications by members of those groups operating outside the SDA church today

Ron said : Sean, This statement is completely dis-ingenuous. The intent of the movement to “clarify” the 6th fundamental belief is exactly that – to impose a civil penalty on those who anything other than the most limited of interpretations.

BobRyan:
What civil penalty would that be?

Ron: Perhaps “civil” penalty isn’t the right word, but I am referring to the penalty of having your job threatened and your character maligned.

Ok but that brings us back to my prior statement – listed first in the text above.

in Christ,

Bob


Recent Comments by BobRyan

Academic Freedom Strikes Again!

george:
By definition, I don’t believe in miracles or apocryphal, anthropomorphic stories about same.Why aren’t scientists observing them today if they occur?

Circular argument. If they were naturally occurring we would expect scientists to see that they are still occurring today. If they are singular events caused by an intelligent being – that being would be under no obligation to “keep causing world wide floods” as if “to do it once you must continually do it”. Armstrong went to the moon.. shall we argue that unless he keeps going to the moon so each new generation can see it … then it did not happen?

Your argument is of the form “all eye witness evidence to some event in the past is no evidence at all unless that event keeps repeating itself so we too can witness it”. Seems less than compelling.

“Could it be that science is better able to detect hoaxes and false claims?” As a rule for dismissing every eye witness account in the past – it is less than compelling. (even when that event cannot be repeated)

Evolutionists “claim” that dust, rocks and gas (in sufficient quantity and over sufficient time and a lot of luck) self organized into rabbits via prokaryote-then-eukaryote-then-more-complexity. But such self-organization cannot be “observed” today.

(What is worse – such a sequence cannot even be intelligently manipulated to occur in the lab)

By your own argument then you should not believe in evolution.


Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
@Sean Pitman:

Suppose you were at a crime scene … there is a tree limb on the ground and a bullet hole in the victim — “all natural causes”? or is one ‘not natural’? Those who say that nothing can be detected as “not naturally occurring in nature” – because all results, all observations make it appear that every result “naturally occurred without intelligent design” seem to be missing a very big part of “the obvious”.


Academic Freedom Strikes Again!

george:
Gentlemen,

What just God would allow an innocent child to be born guilty for the sins of a distant ancestor? …What if there was only One Commandment? Do Good. ‘Kant’ see a problem with that.

An atheist point of view is not often found here – but this is interesting.

1. God does not punish babies for what someone else did – but I suppose that is a reductionist option that is not so uncommon among atheists. The “details” of the subject you are commenting on – yet according to you “not reading” – is that humans are born with sinful natures. A “bent” toward evil. That is the first gap right out of the gate between atheism and God’s Word..

2. But still God supernaturally enables “free will” even in that bent scenario, the one that mankind lives in – ever since the free-will choice of the first humans on planet earth – was to cast their lot in with Satan and rebellion..(apparently they wanted to see what a wonderful result that poor choice would create). John 16 “the Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin and righteousness and judgment”. And of course “I will draw ALL mankind unto Me” John 12:32. (not “just Christians”). Thus supernatural agency promotes free will in a world that would otherwise be unrestrained in its bent to evil.

3.God says “The wages of sin is death” — so then your “complaint” is essentially “that you exist”. A just and loving God created planet Earth – no death or disease or suffering – a perfect paradise where mankind could live forever … and only one tiny restriction… yet Adam and Eve allowed themselves to be duped by Satan… tossing it all away. The “Just God” scenario could easily just have let them suffer the death sentence they chose. He did not do that… hence “you exist” – to then “complain about it”.

4. Of course you might also complain that Satan exists – and Satan might complain that “you exist”. There is no shortage on planet earth of avenues for complaint. But God steps in – offers salvation to mankind at infinite cost to himself – – and the “Few” of Matthew 7 eventually end up accepting that offer of eternal life. The rest seem to prefer the lake of fire option… sort of like Adam and Eve choosing disease and death over eternal life (without fully appreciating the massive fail in that short-sighted choice).

In any case – this thread is about the logic/reason that should be taken into account when a Christian owned and operated institution chooses to stay faithful to its Christian mission — rather then getting blown about by every wind of doctrine. Why let the alchemy of “wild guessing” be the ‘source of truth’ when we have the Bible?? We really have no excuse for that. As for science – we can be thankful that it has come as far along as it has – but no matter how far back you rewind the clock of our science history – we should always have chosen the Bible over wild guessing.


Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions

Ervin Taylor:
Perhaps Dr. Pitman would enlighten his readers what on earth “the neo-Darwinian story of origins” might be. Darwin did not address origins.

Origins of what?? the first eukaryote??
Or “origins of mankind”??

Darwin himself claimed that his own false doctrine on origins was totally incompatible with Genesis and that because of this – Genesis must be tossed under a bus.

hint: Genesis is an account of “Origins” as we all know — even though “bacteria” and “amoeba” are terms that don’t show up in the text.

The point remains – Darwin was promoting his own religion on origins totally counter to the Bible doctrine on origins. He himself addresses this point of the two views.


Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions

Ervin Taylor:
Here we go again.If the footprints upon close examination, are determined not to be from a hominim/hominid, I wonder if Educate Truth (sic) will announce that determination.Or if the date of the surface is determined to be much younger, will there be a notice placed on fundamentalist web-sites.If you believe the answer to these questions are yes, I have a big bridge that I would like to sell you for pennies on the dollar.

Here we go again … hope piled upon hope…no matter the “observations in nature” that disconfirm the classic evolutionary hypothesis

Reminds me of “What we still don’t know” by Martin Reese and Leonard Suskind