Comment on Former LSU student letter reveals professor’s agenda by Sean Pitman.
We donâ€™t need creation scientists for heroes. We donâ€™t need their theories, their â€œevidence,â€ or their data. We donâ€™t need 28 â€œfundamental beliefs,â€ and we donâ€™t need fundamental belief #6 in particular.
Sounds like we don’t need the SDA Church much less SDA schools either? Do we even need the Bible? or any empirical evidence at all?
That may be true when it comes to salvation, since salvation is based on motive, not knowledge. However, this is not true when it comes to giving people a solid conscious hope in the validity of the Gospel’s message here and now…
We need but one hero, the man Jesus Christ, and what He chose to communicate to us directly. If we truly come to know Him, the Word incarnate, we can never deny Him.
It was this same Jesus who established the order and organization of the Church and appealed to the empirical evidence in support of the Scriptures as a basis of a solid faith in His own Gospel message of hope to a dying planet…
You simply can’t have a real conscious “relationship” with anyone outside of a basis in empirical reality…
Sean Pitman Also Commented
I wrote, â€œThe SDA Church is Godâ€™s appointed vessel to bring salvation through Jesus Christ to the worldâ€¦Jesus is what saves and Jesus alone; the SDA Church and all it represents (â€œtruthâ€) can never save a soul who does not reach out to Jesus.â€
And you graciously corrected me: â€œLast I checked, the Church has no power to save at all. The entire purpose of the Church is not to save, but to spread the Gospel message of hope to those for whom salvation has already been purchased.â€
You have suggested I need to do more thinking on my own, but somehow you are always one up on me.
This wasn’t a correction professor. I was actually agreeing with you on this particular point. My disagreement with you is over the importance, or lack thereof, of knowledge of the truth. Just because empirical knowledge doesn’t have the power to save, in and of itself, doesn’t mean that it isn’t important or vital to the Gospel’s message of hope…
And once again you give evidence of your embrace of the false dichotomy so popular in modern and postmodern Adventism between â€œChristâ€ and the â€œdoctrines.â€ 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.
Internalization is key. Knowledge of the truth, by itself, is powerless to save. After all, Satan has more knowledge of the truth than all of us put together. Therefore, one must have a love of the truth which allows one to internalize the truth and make it part of one’s self in order for the saving power of Jesus to become effective within the heart.
It is for this reason that even the heathen who are honestly ignorant of the life of Jesus, the Plan of Salvation, the Bible, or the Gospel message of hope can be saved – by living a life according to the Royal Law written upon the hearts of all mankind. However, they will have missed out on the blessings to be had by knowing and accepting the Gospel message of hope here in this life…
The SDA Church is Godâ€™s appointed vessel to bring salvation through Jesus Christ to the worldâ€“not salvation through 28 fundamental beliefs, FB#6, physical evidence for a young earth and the flood, and the like. Jesus is what saves and Jesus alone; the SDA Church and all it represents (â€œtruthâ€) can never save a soul who does not reach out to Jesus.
Last I checked, the Church has no power to save at all. The entire purpose of the Church is not to save, but to spread the Gospel message of hope to those for whom salvation has already been purchased.
Remember now, knowledge, in and of itself, doesn’t save. However, knowledge does have the power to give people hope here and now…
When was the last time you got an empirical hug from Jesus, Sean?
Every time I see the evidence of Design in nature I know that there is a God. Every time I read the Bible and see the empirical evidence supported by historical science, I know there is a personal God who loves and cares for me. If that isn’t a “hug from Jesus” I don’t know what is…
God didn’t have to give us any evidence whatsoever. He didn’t have to tell us anything about why we are here or any reasons for sin and suffering or anything about what He plans to do about it or our bright future in Heaven with Him for eternity. He didn’t have to tell us any of that. He didn’t have to give us any evidence for the reliability of the Bible vs. other flights of fancy – like the Book of Mormon. The righteous could have been saved without any knowledge, in this life, of the Gospel hope. Yet, I’m so glad that I do have this knowledge here and now. How much better this life when one has a knowledge of the Gospel message of hope and the evidence supporting its credibility as a true story of history and of our future life…
Why is it that you donâ€™t speak of Christ, love, forgiveness, or the cross?
I do speak of Christ’s love, forgiveness, and the Cross all the time. It is just that without evidence of the reality of these things, they’re just a bunch of just-so stories that have no more power to give people hope than a Santa Claus story told to gullible children.
I think youâ€™re so stuck on your superior knowledge of â€œevidenceâ€ and so hypercritical of the simple faith of others, which you mock, that you have lost grasp of the source of your salvation. It is written, â€œthe righteous shall live by faith.â€ Tell us once again that Iâ€™m teaching falsehood, Sean. Warn us all!
Faith is based on the evidence of things unseen professor. Without this evidence, one may be saved, but one will not have a solid conscious realization of this future reality here and now.
For example, did the disciples of Jesus have more or less faith in the Gospel message after they saw Him raised from the dead? Think about it…
“We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us… We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.” 1 John 1:3 NIV and 2 Peter 1:16 NIV
Clearly, it was the evidence of their senses, the empirical evidence itself, that gave them their hope and confidence in Jesus as the true Savior and Redeemer.
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!
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…
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.