@Professor Kent: You wrote: You overlooked the heart of my statement: …

Comment on LSU student: ‘Apostates or Apostles’? by Sean Pitman.

@Professor Kent:

You wrote:

You overlooked the heart of my statement: “All of this is “empirical evidence” that goes beyond what is needed to establish the validity of scripture.”

What part of “sola scriptura” do you not get? We don’t need you, your reason, your website, or any other “empirical evidence” or “reason” to believe that what God tells us in scripture can be believed. You’re still pushing an anti-SDA theology.

And the Latter-day Saints say the same thing about the Book of Mormon and the Muslims say the same thing about the Qur’an. I’m sorry, but people like me need a rational reason to determine that the Bible is in fact the Word of God vs. a host of self-proclaimed competing options.

I’ve asked you this question very directly before:

My question:

How can you can determine that your faith in the supreme credibility of the Bible is superior to the faith of someone else in the greater credibility of the Book of Mormon, or the Qur’an, or any other source of claimed authority? How do you know? Is it not arrogant of you to simply assert that your faith in the Bible is superior to all other faiths? – even in a situation where all other evidence, besides your faith, is admittedly against you? – Sean Pitman

Your response:

I personally believe the Bible has more credibility than the Book of Mormon, which I have browsed extensively. I think history supports the Bible much better than the Book of Mormon, and I have read extensively from Joseph Smith’s Doctrines and Covenants and I see lots of problems there. Most people do not consider history to be “science,” but if you want to make it that, go right ahead. Still, I don’t compare my faith to those who believe in the Book of Mormon. – Professor Kent

Did you not just reference some external empirically-determined reality as a basis for the superior credibility of the Bible as a source of Divine Authority? This is essentially the very same claim that I’m making. I see no fundamental difference between our respective claims in this regard. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me like you’re claiming here that your understanding of the superiority of the Bible vs. other claimed sources of Divine inspiration is based on at least some form of empirical evidence. I agree.

I agree with your argument that the Bible does in fact have greater credibility compared to the Book of Mormon because of the external empirical evidences – to include the historical evidence as determined by the historical sciences (and yes, our understanding of history is based on a form of science or empirically-determined truth that caries a useful degree of “predictive power”).

Yet, at the same time, it seems like you go on to argue that faith in the Bible cannot be shown to be superior to faith in the Book of Mormon. How can you claim that your faith in the Bible seems to be superior to faith in the Book of Mormon because of the historical evidence and yet argue, at the same time, that all faiths are equal without any empirical basis for determining which one is most likely true? – or are we just talking past each other because of symantics here (which I suspect is most likely true to at least some degree…)?

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Sean Pitman Also Commented

LSU student: ‘Apostates or Apostles’?
Please find my reply in the thread for “La Sierra University won’t Reject Creation Teaching:” @Sean Pitman:

There’s no point talking about the same thing in two different threads.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


LSU student: ‘Apostates or Apostles’?
@Professor Kent:

You wrote:

If I realized this deep down, I would take Noah for a fool when God instructed him to build a massive boat to escape a rain and a flood the proportions of which reason would dictate to be impossible. Why did Noah obey? Was it simple trust in God’s word, or use of his emotion-free reason?

Not if you had talked directly with God like Noah did and had hundreds of prior years of experience with God, experiencing his constant reliability and credibility.

Noah had abundant very direct empirical evidence of God’s existence and power – much more direct empirical evidence than we have today. His was not an empirically-blind faith by any means in the word of some stranger claiming to be God.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


LSU student: ‘Apostates or Apostles’?

Professor Kent:

You wrote:

“1) Do you agree wholeheartedly with Sola Scriptura and the historical-grammatical hermeneutic elucidated by the GC “Rio” document and the SDA Biblical Research Institute scholars?”

I believe that once one has established the credibility of the Scriptures to the level of having a very high likelihood of being of Divine origin, then it would be unwise to set them aside in favor of anything else…

You go on to ask:

“2) If so, do you continue to believe that those who accept a simple “Thus saith the Lord” are as duped as believers in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster?”

It depends on why they accept the Bible as their source of authority. Different people have different weights of evidence. What does it for one may not do it for another – only God can judge.

However, I do know that God does in fact desire us to make an intelligent decision in favor of His Word based on the weight of evidence – the weight of empirical evidence. He does not desire empirically-blind faith in His Word. He desires His children to have a thoughtful rational religion – not a religion based on mere emotion-driven blind faith that is devoid of any basis in empirical reality…

You realize this yourself, deep down, or you wouldn’t keep referencing consistency with historical data as one of your bases for supporting the Bible’s authority vs. other claimed sources of Divine authority. You yourself cannot help but present empirical evidences to support your own belief in the Bible’s Divine origin.

So, there you have it.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


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!


The Flood
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…


The Flood
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.