@Denver Fletcher: Bob My view is that – claims to possessing …

Comment on Defining Adventism: A poll by BobRyan.

@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

BobRyan Also Commented

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


Defining Adventism: A poll
Speaking of “Defining Adventism” and contrasting Adventism with the 3SG 90-91 concept of “disguised infidelity” we find this little tidbit of “disguise” commonly used by theistic evolutionists withint our denomination today.

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. It would be very surprising if any Christian adherent whether Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, or any other member of any Christian denomination, sect, branch, or affiliation would dispute the confessional assertion that the God of Abraham and Jesus are ultimately responsible for the creation of all that is good in the physical universe.
Posted November 12th, 2009 by Ervin Taylor at this link
http://www.atoday.com/content/yecylc-adventist-creationism-ellen-white-connection

So this tells us that the devotee to belief in theistic evolutionism — will at times come to a web site like EducateTruth and claim “I too am a creationist”.

(I believe we have seen that once or twice on this board already).

Erv Taylor continues:

Beyond this, let us be honest and confess that contemporary institutional Adventist Christianity is in an extra bind when it comes to this topic. As a number of writers have previously suggested, the creation/Creationist division is a particular problem for the Adventist faith tradition in large part because of the manner in which many Adventists have been taught to view the function and role of Adventism’s 19th century prophetic voice, Ellen White.

Like essentially all of those who shared her immediate religious and social environment in her time and place, it was a simple given that the created world was only about 6,000 years old because that is what it said in the margins of their Bible.

She and they knew that there was an even more recent world wide flood (with the dates for the flood also in their Bible),

that the door of salvation was shut,

and the concept of the Trinity was not a Biblical concept.

She matured in two of these four beliefs and so the religious community which she helped to found eventually ceased to believe in the Shut Door doctrine and an Arian or Semi-Arian view of the Trinity.

Regretfully, she did not live long enough and her insights did not carry her along far enough to reevaluate her position with regard to a number of other beliefs including her understanding of the Genesis narratives. She was too busy focusing on what she viewed as much more important issues such as the theme that God is love.

Thus, the flexibility of early Adventist Christianity was lost when the generation that knew how she and her husband and others close to her developed her ideas, passed off the scene and were replaced by those who did not share the vision of the flexible creativity of “Present Truth.” That original vision was replaced by the static Fundamentalist orthodoxy of the “The Truth.”

Here we see that Taylor admits to the problem that Ellen White poses for truly determined evangelists for theistic evolutionism inside the SDA church.

Insead of paying attention “to the details” found in places like 3SG 90-91 as to where Ellen White claimed to have gotten her revelation from – Taylor muses the happy fiction that maybe – just maybe – Ellen White was actually inspired by “the margin of her Bible” whenever she said “God showed me” something like the Creation of the world. (Certainly Taylor knows that is where HE would get “his inspiration” at this point. And Erv seems to muse that maybe Ellen White was after all just like Erv Taylor himself when it comes to actual inspiration and revelation.)

In any case it is facinating that Taylor assumes Ellen White’s “understanding” was all that needed to be updated – and that her “understanding” was simply based on what she read in the margins of her Bible, and whatever her neighbors or husband happened to think at the time.

The other happy fiction is that Taylor seems to imagine that Ellen Harmon – raised as a Trinitarian — (United Methodist) somehow “discovered” the Trinity late in life (presumably in the 1880’s)

And finally Taylor “imagines” that Ellen White ever claimed that “God showed her” that evangelism had ceased (or maybe Taylor argues that this is yet another tidbit Ellen White picked up from the margin of her Bible? He doesn’t say in this case).

His point seems to be that if the “source” of Ellen White’s understanding is really just whetever her husband and friends and Bible-margin happpened to say – then the sources were indeed flawed and changing. Taylor’s article is designed to lead the reader to speculate on why in the world the denomination would ever have placed any kind of trust or weight in anything she said – vs whatever Samuel Clemens might have said.

How “instructive” that this appears to be all the grasp that some of our theistic evolutionist brethren seem to have on the topic.

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