Professor Kent: No kidding. And that’s why the argument isn’t whether …

Comment on LSU, Pacific Union Conference and North American Division Sued by Bob Pickle.

Professor Kent: No kidding. And that’s why the argument isn’t whether God can restore a long-dead human to life, as you and Bob Pickle tried to make it. The reality is that Scripture makes many claims that are NOT backed up by empirical evidence and naturalistic science, and therefore one must make a choice as to whether they believe GOD or SCIENCE.

I still think you are twisting the issues. If you had said, “GOD or SCIENCE FALSELY SO CALLED,” then maybe you would have been correct.

And the argument as you originally framed it was whether God could resurrect a decomposed corpse. You said that science and all available evidence showed that the resurrection of Christ and Lazarus was impossible. You never said you were only talking about Caiaphas or Herod or Pilate or Tiberias resurrecting Jesus or Lazarus. Anyone who read what you wrote would conclude that you were referring to God resurrecting them, not people.

And thus your statement was indeed false. But you don’t appear to want to admit it.

Bob Pickle Also Commented

LSU, Pacific Union Conference and North American Division Sued


Why are you shifting the discussion? Is this bait and switch?

You previously said that “science and all available evidence” showed that the resurrection of Jesus and the Lazarus was impossible. You now are narrowing the discussion to only physical, scientific evidence. Why the switch?

Perhaps after you acknowledge that you misspoke, that there is evidence for the resurrection of Christ and Lazarus, we can proceed to narrow the scope of the discussion. But for you to narrow the discussion before doing that would be disingenuous.

In the legal realm, the fact that something is missing is itself evidence. The body is missing, and I know of no one that disputes the fact that the body was missing 3 days after death. The only quibble I know of is regarding why the body is missing.

That’s but one example of many that could be presented of evidence for the resurrection of Christ. Another would be the Psalm you refer to which predicted that Christ would be resurrected.

As far as the resurrection in general goes, what Stephen said in Acts 7:5 is pretty powerful. “And he gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on: yet he promised that he would give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after him.” Abraham will have to be resurrected in order for God’s promise of giving him the land to be fulfilled.

And so there is lots of evidence to support the idea of a resurrection, even though an infidel might reject all such evidence, partly to protect his religious beliefs, and partly because he rejects underlying presuppositions.

But I remind you of what I said before, that no laboratory experiments have ever demonstrated that God cannot resurrect a decomposed corpse. And that is a principal issue.

LSU, Pacific Union Conference and North American Division Sued

Professor Kent: At the GC Convention in Atlanta last year, Dr. Ben Clausen of the GRI spoke, along with his peers, of some of the limitations of science. One report that stirred the passions among faith bashers was this: “In conclusion he [Clausen] urged us to place our faith in the Bible because there is not enough support from science.”

Enough support from science for what?

Was he saying that the weight of scientific evidence is against the biblical account of creation? If so, then his statement was false, in my opinion.

Was he saying that there is not enough support from science to answer every last question some critic may bring up? If so, then his statement was true.

LSU, Pacific Union Conference and North American Division Sued

Professor Kent stated that the church belief in a literal creation and the ressurection of Jesus were both grounded in faith. He pointed out the lack of empirical evidence for human beings coming back to life. You insisted he is wrong, that both are grounded in physical evidence.

I am fairly certain that you are twisting my words. For what purpose? And then you launch into a caustic attack.

Kent stated that science and all available evidence says that the resurrection of Lazarus and Jesus are impossible. That is a false statement, and I think a recklessly false one at that. It is not true that there is no available evidence whatsoever that supports the resurrection of Lazarus and Jesus.

Kent also falsely stated that Jesus’ body was decomposing before He was resurrected, and Kent has yet to retract his false statement.

Just because there is evidence does not mean that there is no faith whatsoever involved. It isn’t an either/or situation.

Recent Comments by Bob Pickle

Scott Ritsema, Dr. Lela Lewis, Pastor Wyatt Allen an Dr. Peter McCullough on COVID-19 Vaccines
Think it at all possible that clinicians, plural, located somewhere, at some point in time prior to the interview, did indeed tell Dr. Risch that? It doesn’t seem to me that aggregate data at the CDC can be used to prove that no clinicians told him such a thing.

One obvious problem is that averages for the whole country can’t necessarily tell us what specific locations have experienced, but it does give us an idea of what the probability ought to be.

If no clinicians really did tell him such a thing, and he really did make that statement, then there ought to be consequences.

Is there anything that hinders reporting break-through infections? Another question might be whether there is less testing of vaccinated people than unvaccinated people, and whether that results in under-reporting break-through asymptomatic cases.

Scott Ritsema, Dr. Lela Lewis, Pastor Wyatt Allen an Dr. Peter McCullough on COVID-19 Vaccines
Sean, you write above, “However, this doesn’t prove or even suggest a correlation with the vaccines.”

Isn’t that going too far? I agree that, from a scientific standpoint, this doesn’t prove a correlation. But to say that the numbers don’t even suggest a correlation seems to go too far. It’s like an evolutionist trying to claim that there is no evidence for creation.

According to the WSJ article “Are Covid Vaccines Riskier Than Advertised?” posted at or and written by a Yale professor of epidemiology and a UCLA professor of medicine, concerns arising from the VAERS data isn’t just about the #’s of thrombocytopenia, myocarditis, deep vein thrombosis, and death happening within days of getting a covid-19 vaccine. For example, “Vaers records 321 cases of myocarditis within five days of vaccination, dropping to almost zero in 10 days.”

Certainly that does suggest a correlation, for the numbers to be that high within 5 days and that low in 10 days. Proven? No. Suggest? Most certainly.

Really, your discussion needs to deal with this issue. Certainly people die every day. But if numbers for those four specific adverse events rise soon after a vaccination and then drop, those facts must be addressed. Why the drop?

As far as folks surrendering their civil and religious liberties go, I still think it is unethical for any entity, including a hospital, to coerce employees or others to receive an unapproved medical treatment, a treatment not yet approved by the FDA. Sure, the FDA might soon approve one of the vaccines, but none of them have been approved yet, based on what I could find yesterday at the FDA’s website.

About signing a statement that says one is receiving it voluntarily after coercion and shaming, I just don’t think such a statement is going to work in the court of God. Sure, it happens all the time on earth. A car dealer or whoever makes all kinds of claims, and then you sign a statement that says you understand that nothing of what you were told is binding. But it’s not honest.

The Arguments of Adventists Opposed to Vaccines
1. Any idea when the FDA might approve one of the covid vaccines?

2. Any idea when health authorities might gain confidence that immunity from the illness or a vaccine might last longer than 90 days, or whatever current research is showing now?

Northern California Conference Votes to Act Independent of the General Conference
Sean, you above state: “… a lack of a specific statement in the GC’s Working Policy that explicitly forbids the ordination of women as pastors. As far as I’m aware, such a statement simply doesn’t exist.”

Try BA 60 10 which states: “The world Church supports nondiscrimination in employment practices and policies and upholds the principle that both men and women, without regard to race and color, shall be given full and equal opportunity within the Church to develop the knowledge and skills needed for the building up of the Church. Positions of service and responsibility (except those requiring ordination to the gospel ministry*) on all levels of church activity shall be open to all on the basis of the individual’s qualifications.”

The footnote makes clear that the exception regarding ordination to the gospel ministry is one of gender, not race or color.

Also, B 10 22: “All organizations and institutions throughout the world will recognize the authority of the General Conference Session as the highest authority of the Seventh-day Adventist Church under God.” Here we have part of the Working Policy saying that there is no higher authority under God in the Adventist Church than the sessions that voted down WO in 1990, 1995, and 2015.

Northern California Conference Votes to Act Independent of the General Conference
Sean, in your update you write:

Sean Pitman:
“On the other hand, it also seem clear that on the issue of ordination, in particular, that the “final authority” has been given to the Union level of governance within the church (not to the level of the General Conference) to act as a buffer against too much centralized power within the church. …

“In any case, since honest confusion remains between many honest and sincere members as well as leaders of the church, ….

There certainly is honest confusion regarding this, but I can’t see how everyone is honestly confused.

1. Local churches decide who will be members and who will not, but local churches do not have the authority to make tests of fellowship. Thus the criteria for membership is decided by the world church, while that criteria is applied to individual cases by the local church.

Similarly, though unions decide who will be ordained, they don’t unilaterally determine the criteria for ordination.

2. If unions could unilaterally determine the criteria for ordination, there would have been no reason to bring the matter to the GC Sessions of 1990 and 1995. Particularly in 1995, it seems clear that church leaders understood that without GC division authorization, unions could not approve women for ordination, and that without GC Session authorization, GC divisions could not so authorize.

3. The first I remember hearing that unions could act on their own was after Dan Jackson’s open letter of, I think, Jan. 2012. Maybe we can find this idea being promulgated prior to that date in left-wing journals, but maybe not. Since there certainly has been discussion in some circles about getting rid of unions, it seems difficult to have simultaneous promotion of the idea that we need unions so that women can be ordained.

How it comes across to me is that some want their way no matter what, and are grasping at anything they can to justify their position. For those some, I don’t think the label “honest confusion” fits. Now if they can come up with some sort of historical documentation that local churches can unilaterally determine the criteria for church membership, or that unions can unilaterally determine the criteria for ordination, OK. But I have yet to see any such documentation.