As for the “defining of Adventism” vs the “downsizing of …

Comment on Defining Adventism: A poll by BobRyan.

As for the “defining of Adventism” vs the “downsizing of Adventism” (or the undermining of it) brought through evangelists for evolutionism.

Please consider the quote from athiest evolutionist Richard Dawkins below in the light of Romans 5 where Paul argues that Adam existed and that because of his real sin – humanity all has experienced “death”.

Where (as Dawkins argues below) does Paul say to his reader “of course you know I don’t believe what I just wrote literally because I am a Darwinist and so we all know I think Adam did not actually exist and I really think that death plagued us long long before Adam sinned”??

Dawkins statment is clear – Paul was not out front with his Darwinism and so proper exegesis would not “allow us” to bend the text of Romans 5, or 1Timothy 2 (Adam Created first, Eve sinned first) to insert evolutionism — no not even by Dawkins’ standards!!

The speaker, the writer, the author has not clarified his point to allow much less dictate that the reader insert darwinism into the text instead of simply accepting what is actually written.

By: Richard Dawkins

. All too many preachers, while agreeing that evolution is true and Adam and Eve never existed, will then blithely go into the pulpit and make some moral or theological point about Adam and Eve in their sermons without once mentioning that, of course, Adam and Eve never actually existed! If challenged, they will protest that they intended a purely “symbolic” meaning, perhaps something to do with “original sin”, or the virtues of innocence. They may add witheringly that, obviously, nobody would be so foolish as to take their words literally. But do their congregations know that? How is the person in the pew, or on the prayer-mat, supposed to know which bits of scripture to take literally, which symbolically? Is it really so easy for an uneducated churchgoer to guess? In all too many cases the answer is clearly no, and anybody could be forgiven for feeling confused.

Dawkins gives us that helpful bit of information at this link promoting his new book.

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/book_extracts/article6805656.ece

Now think about that for just a minute. It means that even if someone had no other clue regarding the basics of exegesis – other than the logic of Dawkins quoted above as they were trying to understand the text of Genesis 1-2:3 and Ex 20:8-11 you would be left saying “well the writer did not specify Darwinism SO God really is claiming to have made the world in 7 actual days!!”.

—–

So that brings up a “so what??” pause for reflection and my purpose in raising this topic here.

Posted at Educate Truth –

http://www.educatetruth.com/articles/evolution-in-education-by-jay-gillimore/comment-page-3/#comment-4813

What SDA doctrines are affected by the doctrines of evolutoinism in your opinion?

I have made a starting list but recently have noted that my list is not complete.

in Christ,

Bob

BobRyan Also Commented

Defining Adventism: A poll

@Denver Fletcher:

Bob

My view is that – claims to possessing an education notwithstanding – those who claim that Christianity and evolution can be reconciled, simply do not understand either.

Denver –

That is true. What is amazing is that Darwin himself figured that out – as did Richard Dawkins, P.Z Meyers, Provine… et al.

Certainly in 3SG 90-91 it is clear that Ellen White was informed in no uncertain terms about that point you raise in the post above.

And then there is that list of a few examples our 28FB showing just where evolutionism flatly contradicts the doctrinal statement of Seventh-day Adventists.

http://www.educatetruth.com/articles/evolution-in-education-by-jay-gillimore/comment-page-3/#comment-4813

in Christ,

Bob


Defining Adventism: A poll
Given that our quarterly is on fruits of the Spirit – and that today’s lesson is on meekness, it is certainly right that we be highly focused on the spirit and Christian content of whatever criticism we may have – of anyone.

So thinking along those lines – take a look at this –
http://www.educatetruth.com/la-sierra-evidence/perspectives-from-alleged-lsu-students/comment-page-4/#comment-9770

Do you think of the reference given there as a case of the right amount of criticism given the level of the crisis being addressed?

in Christ,

Bob


Defining Adventism: A poll
from the link referenced above ..

Erv Taylor –
That fact is that, by definition, all Christians and thus all Adventists are creationists (with a small “c.”). They are creationists because they are theists.

As noted – Taylor makes the not-so-convincing wild claim that evolutionsts are to be called “creationists” if in fact they also claim to be Christian while evangelizing for evolutionism.

Suppose for a moment that atheists were inclined to that some kind of wrong-headed thinking. Suppose some small group of atheists innexplicably chose to accept the Bible account of origins the way our theist evolutionist brethren leap of the cliff of evolutionism. Suppose then that those sadly misguided atheists went around claiming “I am an evolutionist even though I have complete faith in the Bible doctrine on origins – because all atheists are evolutionist”.

Their less-than-compelling transparently-flawed story would receive “low marks” from both their fellow atheists and from Christians alike.

This is not unlike the position that theistic evolutionists find themselves in today.

How “instructive” for the unbiased objective reader.

in Christ,

Bob


Recent Comments by BobRyan

Academic Freedom Strikes Again!

george:
By definition, I don’t believe in miracles or apocryphal, anthropomorphic stories about same.Why aren’t scientists observing them today if they occur?

Circular argument. If they were naturally occurring we would expect scientists to see that they are still occurring today. If they are singular events caused by an intelligent being – that being would be under no obligation to “keep causing world wide floods” as if “to do it once you must continually do it”. Armstrong went to the moon.. shall we argue that unless he keeps going to the moon so each new generation can see it … then it did not happen?

Your argument is of the form “all eye witness evidence to some event in the past is no evidence at all unless that event keeps repeating itself so we too can witness it”. Seems less than compelling.

“Could it be that science is better able to detect hoaxes and false claims?” As a rule for dismissing every eye witness account in the past – it is less than compelling. (even when that event cannot be repeated)

Evolutionists “claim” that dust, rocks and gas (in sufficient quantity and over sufficient time and a lot of luck) self organized into rabbits via prokaryote-then-eukaryote-then-more-complexity. But such self-organization cannot be “observed” today.

(What is worse – such a sequence cannot even be intelligently manipulated to occur in the lab)

By your own argument then you should not believe in evolution.


Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
@Sean Pitman:

Suppose you were at a crime scene … there is a tree limb on the ground and a bullet hole in the victim — “all natural causes”? or is one ‘not natural’? Those who say that nothing can be detected as “not naturally occurring in nature” – because all results, all observations make it appear that every result “naturally occurred without intelligent design” seem to be missing a very big part of “the obvious”.


Academic Freedom Strikes Again!

george:
Gentlemen,

What just God would allow an innocent child to be born guilty for the sins of a distant ancestor? …What if there was only One Commandment? Do Good. ‘Kant’ see a problem with that.

An atheist point of view is not often found here – but this is interesting.

1. God does not punish babies for what someone else did – but I suppose that is a reductionist option that is not so uncommon among atheists. The “details” of the subject you are commenting on – yet according to you “not reading” – is that humans are born with sinful natures. A “bent” toward evil. That is the first gap right out of the gate between atheism and God’s Word..

2. But still God supernaturally enables “free will” even in that bent scenario, the one that mankind lives in – ever since the free-will choice of the first humans on planet earth – was to cast their lot in with Satan and rebellion..(apparently they wanted to see what a wonderful result that poor choice would create). John 16 “the Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin and righteousness and judgment”. And of course “I will draw ALL mankind unto Me” John 12:32. (not “just Christians”). Thus supernatural agency promotes free will in a world that would otherwise be unrestrained in its bent to evil.

3.God says “The wages of sin is death” — so then your “complaint” is essentially “that you exist”. A just and loving God created planet Earth – no death or disease or suffering – a perfect paradise where mankind could live forever … and only one tiny restriction… yet Adam and Eve allowed themselves to be duped by Satan… tossing it all away. The “Just God” scenario could easily just have let them suffer the death sentence they chose. He did not do that… hence “you exist” – to then “complain about it”.

4. Of course you might also complain that Satan exists – and Satan might complain that “you exist”. There is no shortage on planet earth of avenues for complaint. But God steps in – offers salvation to mankind at infinite cost to himself – – and the “Few” of Matthew 7 eventually end up accepting that offer of eternal life. The rest seem to prefer the lake of fire option… sort of like Adam and Eve choosing disease and death over eternal life (without fully appreciating the massive fail in that short-sighted choice).

In any case – this thread is about the logic/reason that should be taken into account when a Christian owned and operated institution chooses to stay faithful to its Christian mission — rather then getting blown about by every wind of doctrine. Why let the alchemy of “wild guessing” be the ‘source of truth’ when we have the Bible?? We really have no excuse for that. As for science – we can be thankful that it has come as far along as it has – but no matter how far back you rewind the clock of our science history – we should always have chosen the Bible over wild guessing.


Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions

Ervin Taylor:
Perhaps Dr. Pitman would enlighten his readers what on earth “the neo-Darwinian story of origins” might be. Darwin did not address origins.

Origins of what?? the first eukaryote??
Or “origins of mankind”??

Darwin himself claimed that his own false doctrine on origins was totally incompatible with Genesis and that because of this – Genesis must be tossed under a bus.

hint: Genesis is an account of “Origins” as we all know — even though “bacteria” and “amoeba” are terms that don’t show up in the text.

The point remains – Darwin was promoting his own religion on origins totally counter to the Bible doctrine on origins. He himself addresses this point of the two views.


Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions

Ervin Taylor:
Here we go again.If the footprints upon close examination, are determined not to be from a hominim/hominid, I wonder if Educate Truth (sic) will announce that determination.Or if the date of the surface is determined to be much younger, will there be a notice placed on fundamentalist web-sites.If you believe the answer to these questions are yes, I have a big bridge that I would like to sell you for pennies on the dollar.

Here we go again … hope piled upon hope…no matter the “observations in nature” that disconfirm the classic evolutionary hypothesis

Reminds me of “What we still don’t know” by Martin Reese and Leonard Suskind