Geraty is correct in noting that salvation is not based

Comment on Dr. Geraty clarifies his “Challenge” to literal 6-day creationism by Sean Pitman.

Geraty is correct in noting that salvation is not based on knowledge of the truth, but on a Love of the truth (thank God). However, a solid hope in the “good news” of the Gospel is indeed based on knowledge. Sure, even though the heathen who have never heard of Jesus or the Gospel message can be saved according to the Royal Law of Love, they will have missed out on an opportunity to have a better and more hopeful and fulfilled life here and now.

The SDA Church is all about spreading this hopeful Gospel message to those who are struggling in this life – to give some solid encouragement and a reality of a bright literal future in store for us all.

Part of this Gospel message involves highlighting the Creative Power of God in His original creation of our world. This evident Creative Power is also used as a basis for God’s ability and promise to recreate this planet back to its original idealic state once this Great Controversy comes to an end – without having to wait for millions and billions of years for the very painful mechanism of “survival of the fittest” to do the job…

Dr. Geraty forgets that the founding fathers and mothers of this SDA Church were very much believers in and supporters of a literal creation week – in the face of strong Darwinist teachings of the day. Mrs. White in particular wrote very strongly against the Darwinian notions of the need for millions of years of evolutionary progress on this planet. She claimed that she was shown in vision that the creation week described in the Genesis account was like any other week we know today. She even wrote an entire chapter in Patriarchs and Prophets entitled, “The Literal Week” in which she carefully explains the reality and importance of the literal creation week.

In short, I thank Dr. Geraty for his honesty and forthrightness regarding his views on this issue. It helps to clarify positions. However, it also helps to clarify the reason why LSU is in the state that it is in – in open rebellion against the clearly stated position of the SDA Church, as a body, on this foundational pillar of the SDA faith.

This decided long-standing rebellion against the Church must be addressed in an equally decided manner – and soon. This has been going on far too long, several decades now, to be ignored any longer. What do we, as the SDA Church, really stand for as “fundamental”? What do we really want to teach our own children in our own schools as “the present truth” for our day?

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

P.S. As far as Dr. Geraty’s comment that:

“…A seven literal historical, consecutive, contiguous 24-hour day week of creation 6,000 years ago is NOT in Genesis no matter how much the fundamentalist wing of the church would like to see it there.”…

Please refer to the following interesting comments by James Barr, late Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford:

â€œProbably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1â€“11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noahâ€™s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the â€œdaysâ€ of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.â€

Letter from Professor James Barr to David C.C. Watson of the UK, dated 23 April 1984.

James Barr also takes conservative evangelicals to task for insisting on a literal interpretation of Scripture but then abandoning it when it comes to the creation story in Genesis. Barr explains, in his work entitled Fundamentalism that,

“as the scientific approach came to have more and more assent from fundamentalists themselves, they shifted their interpretation of the Bible passage from literal to non-literal in order to saveâ€¦ the inerrancy of the Bible. In order to avoid the consequence of an errant Bible, the fundamentalist “has tried every possible direction of interpretation other than the literal.” Yet, Barr rightly continues by noting that “in fact the only natural exegesis is a literal one, in the sense that this is what the author meant.”
– James Barr, Fundamentalism, Philadelphia, PA: Westminster 1977, p. 42

Some criticize my use of this quotation because Barr did not believe in the historicity of Genesis. But, that is precisely why his statement is so interesting: he believed the author(s) of Genesis got it wrong. With no need to try to harmonize Genesis with anything, because he did not see it as carrying any authority, Barr was free to state the clear intention of the author. This contrasts with some â€˜evangelicalâ€™ theologians who try to retain some sense of authority without actually believing it says much, if anything, about historyâ€¦

Table of Contents

1 Sean Pitman Also Commented
- 1.1 Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
2 Related

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Dr. Geraty clarifies his “Challenge” to literal 6-day creationism
@Ron Nielsen:

Sean, it seems to me that if you admit ANY functional change in the DNA the creation/evolution debate is lost in favor of evolution. All the rest, however you define species is just a matter of time and quantity.

Hardly. The vast majority of functional mutations are detrimental – based on a loss of qualitatively unique pre-established functionality. Most of the rare mutations that are functionally beneficial do not produce something that is qualitatively new within the gene pool of options, but produce only an increase or decrease in activity of the same type of functionality that was already there to begin with. And, the very rare beneficial mutations that actually produce something qualitatively unique as well as functionally beneficial never produce anything that requires a minimum of more than 1000 specifically arranged amino acid residues to work – not even close.

The reason for this is that evolution beyond this very low level of functional complexity would require trillions upon trillions of years to achieve – – on average.

This is why the constant demonstration of low-level examples of “evolution in action” do not remotely explain how higher levels of evolution are therefore reasonable – even given a few billion years. The extrapolation is not at all reasonable because of the exponential decline in evolutionary potential with each step up the ladder of functional complexity.

You say, “it’s just a matter of time and quantity”. What you don’t understanding is that the time required is simply not reasonable. The time required to get beyond even the 1000aa level is in the multiple trillions of years. Do you not see that as a problem?

That is why I think it is so dangerous to state that evolution is incompatible with belief in God and creation, because no one, not even you are willing to deny that that the mechanisms for evolution are in place.

The mechanism for evolution is not “in place” beyond extremely low levels of functional complexity. That’s the problem.

It’s similar to saying that because natural processes are known which can produce roughly cube shape granite blocks that obviously such mindless natural mechanisms could explain a highly symmetrical polished granite cube measuring exactly one meter on each side. Such a conclusion does not rationally follow since the higher level illustration requires exponentially more time for the natural mechanism to achieve relative to the lower level demonstration that does not require the same level of constraints…

Except out of wanton ignorance, it is not possible to deny evolution in this day of DNA mapping. If you insist on making evolution and belief in God mutually exclusive you will have to declare every single educated person in the church to be athiests and drive them out of the church. Your stance just isnâ€™t reasonable.

Anyone who wishes to worship in our Church is welcome – even if he/she is an “atheists”. I would not drive anyone who wants to come out of our Church. However, this does not mean that such a one should ever expect to get a paycheck from the SDA Church for promoting his/her atheistic ideas from pulpit or classroom.

You see, attendance is not the same thing as paid representation. A paid representative must be held to a higher standard in any organization.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Dr. Geraty clarifies his “Challenge” to literal 6-day creationism
@Michael Prewitt:

I agree with this general line of reasoningâ€¦

Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com

Dr. Geraty clarifies his “Challenge” to literal 6-day creationism
@Geanna Dane:

In other words, youâ€™d believe in the existence and love of God despite all physical evidence to the contrary? That is very similar to the faith of some LDS friends of mine. I suppose it works for some people, but my own relationship with God is based on the evidence that I think He has given me of His own existence and the reliability of his Word combined with personal experiences with answers to prayer, etc.

Now, I agree with you that theistic evolutionists can be saved even if they got the whole origins thing all wrong. God loves everyone and will save all who earnestly seek after Him and love Him in the person of â€œthe least of theseâ€¦â€ Salvation itself is not based on correct doctrinal knowledge, but on living according to the Royal Law of Love. However, correct doctrinal knowledge is not therefore worthless. It is very valuable in that it has the power to give us a clearer picture of God here and now and to provide a solid basis of hope here in now in the reality of God and of a bright and glorious future.

Iâ€™m sorry, but without correct doctrinal knowledge, without the Bible, you may have some sort of vague idea of Godâ€™s existence and maybe even His love for you through the features of nature, but you would have very little else upon which to base a solid hope in such notions. It is the evidence that the Bible is reliable in those things which can be tested and evaluated that gives solid confidence in those metaphysical statements that cannot be directed evaluated â€“ at least for me.

This is why when you argue so strongly for the idea that science works against SDA doctrinal positions and offer nothing up but blind faith that the Bible is true that you undermine the basis of many peopleâ€™s hope in the reality of the Good News. Your seeming suggestion is that science is quite clearly contrary to some very plain biblical statements and that the only way to overcome such evidence is through blind faith. That simply doesnâ€™t do it for many many people. It certainly doesnâ€™t do it for me.

I hope this helps you to at least understand why your ideas and comments are so strongly opposed by those who actually consider it important that the Bible be consistent with the physical evidence in order for its metaphysical statements to be considered trustworthyâ€¦

Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com