@David Read: Thank you David. I couldn’t agree with …

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

@David Read:
Thank you David. I couldn’t agree with this quote more. What you believe is incredibly important.

One of the errors the deceiver seems to be bringing upon the church at this time is that God is unable to tolerate confusion and perplexity in honest seekers of truth within the Adventist church and that He work requires the use of force and persecution.

Who do you think Mrs White is referring to in this controversy? I listen to her, “It is his plan to bring into the church insincere, unregenerate elements that will encourage doubt and unbelief, and hinder all who desire to see the work of God advance and to advance with it.” and I ask myself, who in this discussion is insincere? Then I recall words like “junk science”, disrespectful name calling and dismissive attitudes which “encourages (me at least) to doubt about the church’s sincerity”. I hear hard words spoken against honest, hard working teachers by people who seem unwilling to “see the work of God advance and to advance with it.” In this discussion, people don’t want to understand and advance the truth! All I am seeing is a desire enforce an artificial unity by maligning the true seekers and throwing them out.

I hear people who cannot give any coherent explanation of how their faith is compatible with clear and simple scientific observations, giving “assent to some principles of truth and pass as Christians, and thus they are enabled to introduce their errors (in this case, by trying to make the scripture be more specific than it actually is) as Scriptural doctrines.”

(I’m sorry, This statement is just so crystal clear as to who in this controversy she would be referring to. The teachers teaching evolution have NEVER to my knowledge ever claimed that their teaching was “scriptural doctrine”. The only faction in this controversy that this statement could in any way be referring to are those who are supporting the tightening of the creed.)

Notice how the truth that sanctifies the soul is received, “in the love of it”. You may have the most absolutely perfect formulation of truth that has ever been articulated in a creed, and yet, how does using that creed to threaten and coerce help some one receive the truth in love?

You cannot accept the truth in love, except by rational, respectful discussion.

“From the beginning the servants of God have contended against false teachers, not merely as vicious men,”
Who were the “false teachers” in the beginning. Were they not the conservatives? The pharisees, and the Judaizers who were trying to protect the orthodox understanding of God’s word from the changes introduced by the Apostles?

Who in this current controversy, claims to be upholding the word of God while at the same time acting as “vicious men”? Who was it that the Apostle Paul “opposed to his face”? Was it not Peter, the “General Conference President”, so to speak, of the early church? Who today is claiming to be upholding the truth, while at the same time acting viciously? Is it not the General Conference President himself? Aided by people like Sean and Bob?

Don’t you find her examples instructive? Elijah, Jeremiah, and Paul were all in open and heated conflict with the establishment and Orthodox of their day. How could this statement be any more clear? This movement to enforce orthodoxy by force and coercion is absolutely wrong.

Ron Also Commented

A little-known history about Belief 6
@David R.:
David, I want to thank you for such a cogent and timely analysis. Well done. I could only wish that traditionalists and liberals alike would take this instruction to heart.


A little-known history about Belief 6
@Wesley Kime:
@ Faith and Wesley; Actually, you both grossly misinterpret my position. I actually think it is hugely important what you think. Your current and future happiness depends on it; and I agree that God will not tolerate sin forever, and neither should we. That is exactly why I am so active about speaking up on this forum. I believe the church is committing a grievous error, if not an outright sin by their current response to the controversy.

The issue at least for me, is not WHAT the church believes or doesn’t believe. The issue is HOW the church responds to diversity of belief. I believe that fear and coercion are tools of the devil. I believe the tools of God are reason and loving confrontation. Trying to purify the church by developing a creed and expelling every teacher and preacher who can’t or won’t line up is just wrong. By attempting to coerce the conscience, it is using the devil’s methods. And to be frank, it just isn’t pragmatic. It doesn’t get you where you want to go, i.e. a truly unified church which is unified because people really understand and believe.

The proper method is to engage in thoughtful and respectful dialogue (i.e. don’t use pejorative terms such as “junk science”). Don’t just write people off, be honest, and really deal with the issues. Like God, be tolerant and patient while people work through the issues. Sometimes, as we have seen in God’s dealings with Satan, it takes time. Like God, you have to be tolerant enough to let people explore, and be wrong. At least for a little while until the evidence becomes clear. Yes, I know. For some of you the evidence IS clear. But for some others it isn’t. Religious Liberty means that the majority, for whom the issue is clear, have to tolerate the minority, for whom the issue is NOT clear. As an aside regarding Sean’s assertion, Religious Liberty is not a civil issue. It is an issue of conscience.

Tolerance does not mean that you are passive, or that you are accepting of a position; what it means is that you engage respectfully, and that you accept some discomfort during the process. I am sorry I am not quoting the Bible or Mrs. White. I find these concepts are so pervasive throughout the Bible and Mrs. White that I would have a hard time knowing even where to start. I mean, the whole point of the Great Controversy is . . . the Controversy, right? Why do you think it has taken so long? It is because God is not willing to short circuit the process by being authoritarian. He refuses to impose on Man’s will; or even the will of Satan and the Angels. He is taking the time to patiently confront the issues one by one as they come up, and the process will not be finished until EVERY issue has come up, and EVERYONE, even Satan himself is convinced. Not convinced by coercion or fear, but honestly, freely, and truly convinced. (Here is an E.G.W quote: Read the Great Controversy).

That is why God allowed Hitler, so the world could see and freely decide that genocide is wrong. Before Hitler genocide was accepted as an appropriate solution. (Here is a Bible quote: See Judges). After Hitler, it is not accepted. That is why Christ had to die, to show man that here is a God that you don’t have to be afraid of, that it is OK for you to come to Him. He is “There for you”. I have no doubt that if Hitler came to God even in the last few moments after he swallowed the poison, that God would be there for him and accept him. I would not be the least bit surprised to see him in heaven. (OK Faith; I agree that it is highly unlikely, but as a matter of argument and principle, I wouldn’t be surprised.)

(As an aside: Stop and consider for a moment. What was the real problem in the Garden of Eden. Was it the act of stealing the fruit or was it the fear toward God that Adam and Eve had afterward? What if they had moved toward God instead of running away? God managed to forgive the sins of the Angels in heaven who returned to Him without killing and death, but how could God cure man’s fear? The difference between Man and the Angels was the fear. It was the fear which broke the relationship with God and it required the death of God in Christ to show Man that God would rather die than harm or coerce.)

God, how did we go from talking about teachers trying to teach science to the best of their understanding to talking about Hitler? This is just completely insane. Where is the church’s sense of perspective? May God help us.


A little-known history about Belief 6

BobRyan: Ron it is not the “book” that determines interpretation but “the context and content”

Bob, please don’t be purposefully obtuse. The point is that, assuming you apply the same interpretive principles to each, there is every bit as much reason to think that the Genesis story is talking figuratively about spiritual realities as there is to think such about the descriptions of creation in Psalms and Job. Since none of us were there to provide independent verification, it behooves us to be tolerant of the interpretations of others.


Recent Comments by Ron

Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation

Sean Pitman: No one is demanding that they “get out of the church”. . . . . anti-Adventist views on such a fundamental level.

You don’t see how characterizing a dedicated believer’s understanding of truth as “fundamentally anti-Adventist” would drive them out of the church?

I guess that explains why you don’t see that what you are doing here is fundamentally wrong.


Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation

Professor Kent: Nothing saddens me more than the droves who leave the Church when they learn that many of their cherished beliefs regarding this evidence don’t hold up so well to scrutiny.

I agree. I am sure that Sean and Bob don’t mean to undermine faith in God, but every time they say that it is impossible to believe in God and in science at the same time, I feel like they are telling me that any rational person must give up their belief in God, because belief in God and rationality can’t exist in the same space. Who would want to belong to that kind of a church?


Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation

Sean Pitman: and have little if anything to do with the main point of their prophetic claims

And by analogy, this appears to be a weak point in the creation argument. Who is to decide what the main point is?

It seems entirely possible that in trying to make Gen. 1 too literal, that we are missing the whole point of the story.


Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
Regarding falsifying the existence of God through the miraculous:

While it is true that one can’t falsify the existance of God and the Biblical miracles at a philosophical level, it seems to me that it is possible to falsify it at a practical level. For instance prayer for healing. How many families who pray for a miracle for a loved one in the Intensive Care Unit receive a miracle?

While the answer to that question doesn’t answer the question of the existence of God at a philosophical level, it does answer the question at a practical level. After 36 years of medical practice I can say definitively that at a practical level when it comes to miracles in the ICU, God does not exist. Even if a miracle happens latter today, it wouldn’t be enough to establish an expectation for the future. So at a practicle level it seems it is possible level to falsify the existence od God, or at least prove His nonintervention which seems to me to be pretty much the same thing at a functional level.


Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
@Sean Pitman:
Sean, what is your definition of “Neo-darwinism” as opposed to “Darwinism” as opposed to “evolution”?