I fully favor revising Belief No. 6 so that it …

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

I fully favor revising Belief No. 6 so that it defines the six days of creation as “literal, consecutive, twenty-four (24) hour days,” with God resting on the seventh day of that first week–also defined as a literal twenty-four (24) hour period.

At the same time, I can’t see how one can read Belief No. 6 as it presently exists and find any way of justifying long ages or macroevolution. Perhaps one can do this simply by not defining the actual six days of creation as literal. But what about the statement that God rested “on the seventh day of that first week”? If one is an evolutionist believing in long ages, when did God enter this “rest”? How long were the earlier days of creation, and how long did God in fact rest?

As I understand the thinking of evolutionists, including the so-called “theistic” kind we have in various Adventist circles, they believe God is still creating even now, and that the process has never ceased. I have seen such statements myself from Adventist evolutionists, as have others in this conversation. How then do they reconcile their belief in evolutionary “creation” as a never-ending process with the statement in Belief No. 6 that God “rested on the seventh day of that first week”?

Much as I agree that Belief No. 6 should be revised so as to prohibit any reasonable misunderstanding, I still am having a hard time figuring out how Fritz Guy, Larry Geraty, Erv Taylor, or others of like mind can feel comfortable with the language of Belief No. 6 even as it presently reads. Even the present wording seems to imply quite strongly that the first week of time is exactly as Genesis says it was, with creation occurring in six days and God resting on the seventh day of that first week. No one has yet offered any evolutionary explanation of this statement–especially as it concerns the Sabbath and the stated completion of the creative process–which makes any sense. Or, for that matter, any explanation whatsoever.

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson

Kevin Paulson Also Commented

A little-known history about Belief 6
Dear Ray:

No one, certainly not Ellen White, has stated that if the General Conference in global session votes for doctrinal error, that we are to accept this as infallible truth. But this does not mean that such voted statements should not exist, or be set aside as some kind of human tradition or man-made creed. So long as such statements are strictly faithful to the written counsel of God, they can safely function as an authority for the church.

Belief No. 6, so far as I’m concerned, is completely accurate in what it says. But it could and should be made plainer, so as to eliminate reasonable misunderstanding. The church has been constrained to offer such progressive clarity throughout its history, due to the emergence of various crises and issues. Early editions of the Church Manual, for example, made no reference to drug trafficking or homosexual practice as reasons for church discipline. Now the Manual makes explicit reference to these problems, obviously because they are visible issues in our society just now. This certainly doesn’t mean the earlier editions of the Manual permitted these practices. But it does mean that with modern societal trends, such clarity became essential.

The same is true with the issues raised by the theistic evolutionists among us.

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson


A little-known history about Belief 6
Certain ones in this discussion seem to have embraced one of the most destructive and unscriptural notions in modern and postmodern Adventism–the idea that doctrinal truth does not save a person.

While it is true that mere theoretical knowledge will save no one, the Bible is quite clear that the internalized acceptance of doctrinal truth is very much a salvation issue. God declared through Hosea, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge; because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee” (Hosea 4:6).

Jesus declared in His conflict with Satan in the wilderness, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God’ (Matt. 4:4). “Every word” certainly forbids any division of God’s written counsel into “salvation” and “non-salvation” parts. There is no such dichotomy anywhere in God’s Word. And to His disciples Jesus stated, “If ye continue in My word, then are ye My disciples indeed” (John 8:31).

Paul declares, “God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth” (II Thess. 2:13). According to this verse, we are saved both by the Spirit’s sanctification and by embracing God’s truth. And to Timothy the same author wrote, “Take heed unto thyself, amd unto the doctrine: continue in them; for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee” (I Tim. 4:16).

These verses of Scripture give no allowance to the theory that having the right doctrine is unimportant to our salvation. On the issue of origins, it is breathtakingly clear that how we believe is without question a salvation issue. As I have said repeatedly in these discussions–without a reply so far from the apologists for theistic evolution–if evolution is true there is no fall, no sin, and thus no need of a Saviour. If evolution is true, the brutal and merciless process of natural selection–“survival of the fittest”–becomes both the norm and the ultimate good in the saga of life. There is no room for grace or mercy in such a worldview, since it is by the strong devouring the weak that nature and humanity advance to higher and better things.

Some in this conversation are alleging that voted belief systems are unimportant because a mere statement of theoretical truth won’t solve the present problem in places like LSU, etc. Certainly a mere statement of fact will not solve the problem by itself. But it is imperative that such a statement be made as a basis of clarifying beyond any doubt the church’s stance, before our members and before the world. To say a mere theory of truth isn’t enough is like saying a marriage ceremony isn’t enough for two to become one. Technically that is correct; much more than attendants, guests, a minister, and expensive gowns are needed for a marriage to work. But the ceremony still counts.

Regarding “creeds,” our pioneers opposed the use of human tradition as a measure of the Christian’s beliefs. They most assuredly did not oppose the use of God’s Word as such a measure. One cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, interpret the pioneers’ resistance to creedalism as an endorsement of theological pluralism in the church, or as implying that how one believes or lives should not jeopardize one’s church membership if one is found to be unfaithful to what the Word says. The pioneers of the Seventh-day Adventist Church were as far from the pluralistic notions of theological liberalism as the east is from the west.

We can’t say it often enough. Evolution and Christianity are incompatible at the most basic levels. To uphold and defend the one is to attack and overthrow the other. The church must choose between the two. No compromise is even remotely possible.

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson


Recent Comments by Kevin Paulson

NAD President, Education Director Dialog with La Sierra Campus Community
To all participants in the present discussion:

If we’re going to address the issue of how the origins debate should be handled in the public schools, I think we should recognize from the outset that this is most different from the basic question raised by this Web site, which of course is the question of whether theories of origins contrary to Scripture, the Spirit of Prophecy writings, and fundamental Adventist beliefs should be promoted in a Seventh-day Adventist classroom or pulpit.

As a strong Biblical conservative, I am constrained both to support the Genesis creation account as well as the separation of church and state. Seventh-day Adventists have historically supported both on strict Bible grounds. As strongly as I oppose within the church the teaching of ideas and practices which contradict God’s written counsel, I oppose with equal strength the efforts of certain Christian to impose Christian teachings and personal values through civil law.

With this in mind, I believe the best approach to origins in a public school classroom is a modified version of a proposal advanced by the late Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard, very much a devout evolutionist. Gould argued that the teaching of creationism did in fact belong in the teaching of science in public schools, but that it should be covered specifically when addressing the history of scientific thought. I would take this further than Gould and say evolution belongs in that section also.

Technically, as I see this discussion, neither creation nor evolution constitutes strict science, as science requires both observation and experimentation, and no one was present when the natural world came into existence. Science can be summoned to support both theories, but at the bottom line, both concepts invariably lead away from science into the realm of philosophy and faith.

As with other issues of theology and morality which at times enter the public square, it has long been my conviction that the objective evidence supporting the Biblical worldview is sufficiently decisive that the spurs of civil coercion need not be used to promote it to the larger society. The Christian community has sufficient resources and a massive popular presence in our culture, and these should be utilized to set before the public the evidence supporting the claims of the Bible and the Christian faith. Most of all, Christians need to focus less on impacting society through politics and more on impacting their neighbors and society in general through the power of a godly Christian example. From my experience, even the most secular minds have trouble gainsaying the power of the latter.

Finally, I think Phil Brantley needs to define a bit more carefully what he means by “mainstream,” when he says creationism is not a “mainstream” view. Does he mean mainstream in terms of accepted scientific thought, or does he refer to popular opinion? If the latter is considered, it might help to note that every poll I have seen indicates a large percentage (often a majority) of the American public at least, holds to a view of origins closer to Genesis than to Darwin.

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson


NAD President, Education Director Dialog with La Sierra Campus Community
Perhaps it helps to remember that while Aaron was a facilitator, Moses was a watchman. The latter are the sort of leaders God seeks in a time of crisis such as this.

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson


Former LSU student letter reveals professor’s agenda
Dear “Professor Kent”:

You seem to forget, once again, that neither Christ, His love, His forgiveness, nor His cross would be necessary if Darwinian macro-evolution is the story of humanity’s origins.

And once again you give evidence of your embrace of the false dichotomy so popular in modern and postmodern Adventism between “Christ” and the “doctrines.” You insist that correct doctrine will save no one. And you are wrong. Over and over again, in Holy Scripture, truth is declared to be the means of salvation (Hosea 4:6; Matt. 4:4; John 8:31; II Thess. 2:13; I Tim. 4:16). Such truth must be internalized within the heart, to be sure, but it is still the means by which God saves men and women.

You cannot separate Jesus from a literal understanding of the early chapters of Genesis, since repeatedly He made clear in His teachings that He took these events literally. The same holds true for the other New Testament authors. You cannot have the Gospel and evolution too. You cannot embrace Jesus and relegate the Genesis Flood to mythic or mere literary status. It is impossible.

The longer this discussion proceeds, the clearer it will be that you and all others who think as you do are in the wrong church. It is tragic you insist on putting yourself through the needless pain and agony of living a lie.

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson


Former LSU student letter reveals professor’s agenda
Though I had briefly reviewed the letter from Jason and Janelle Shives some days ago, tonight was the first time I actually sat down to read the entire document. It is a masterful though tragic account of a most disturbing situation.

I have known Jason Shives for some time, and have admired him for his courage in standing for truth. He and I share a common experience in having both served as president of the Loma Linda University student body.

What is needed is a grassroots movement of godly students like Jason and Janelle, who will not sit and listen quietly to the perversion of truth in Adventist classrooms. Leaders with the courage to act are needed, most assuredly, but when a groundswell of concern from the young becomes evident, they can act with the awareness that the rising generaiton does not, after all, wish to see the church’s teachings trashed, as the liberals devoutly believe.

If the Bible means anything at all, revival and reformation involve drastic changes in the faith and practice of a community which for a time has departed from the written counsel of God. In the Bible story, this has generally meant the removal of unfaithful personnel from positions of influence and leadership. Most assuredly this must happen in contemporary Adventism. If it means closing departments or even institutions until we can staff them with faithful teachers, we must be prepared to do this.

Let us keep in particular our new General Conference President in our prayers, as the task of guiding the denominational ship of state rests to a large degree in his hands.

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson


An apology to PUC
Dear Karl:

I truly appreciate your clarity and your speaking from the heart as you have. PUC is my alma mater also. And the things you have described I have heard described by a number of credible eyewitnesses. This climate of doctrinal indifference and postmodern spirituality, in which any and all viewpoints are given equal value (except of course those actually challenging the undergirding mindset of these folks), is a scandal of unapralleled proportions.

You are so right about constituents and school administrators turning a blind eye. I can only hope this is now starting to change, with the agitation of those like the organizers of this Web site, and the tone set by our new General Conference President.

I truly believe, however, that the real root of this tragedy is not so much postmodernism as those popular theories of salvation in modern Adventism which have devalued the necessity of correct doctrine and practical holiness. Once salvation is seen to be secure apart from correct belief and a godly life, once we accept the lie that error and sin are the unavoidable companions of even the sanctified believer, it became inevitable that erroneous worldviews and sinful practices would become less and less offensive in the church.

We need a thorough revival and a thorough reformation, and a consequently thorough cleansing of the ranks. I have been studying lately the Bible stories of revival and reformation in the faith community. Believe me, the process was never a feel-good, everybody-come-together-unconditionally type of event. False worship was destroyed. Wrong practices were condemned and expelled from the camp. Apart from such real-life consequences, these cherished words become just another empty slogan.

Thanks again, Karl, for your candor.

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson