Sean Pitman: How does any of this counter anything I said?The …

Comment on The Adventist Accrediting Association to Approve LSU’s Accreditation by Pauluc.

Sean Pitman:
How does any of this counter anything I said?The fact remains that a number of the early Adventist pioneers believed and promoted some form of the passive gap theory and that many modern Adventist scholars believe the same.It is also true that neither the Bible or Ellen White make definitive statements to the contrary… i.e., there are no statements that necessitate the creation of the material of the Earth or of the universe during creation week.In fact, there are statements in both the Bible and the writings of Ellen White which claim that the universe, to include stars in an inhabited worlds, pre-existed our creation week.

Yes and as you have repeatedly suggested the majority is no measure of truth. The question however remains what did the first readers of the text understand and what was the intention of the writers. I am confident that EG White understood the world was created on day 1 of the creation week. That you can say she did not exclude the possibility that it was actually pre-prepared billions of years earlier says only that you think we as modern readers should second guess her commentary and vision according to what we think is reasonable.

By the time of EG White the industrial revolution with its dependence on coal and road and rail building was well advanced and the science of geology was not at all secret. So was the discussion of the age of the earth and it is no surprise that many Christians seized upon the gap theory as a mechanisms both to accommodate the long age of the earth and a short chronology of life on earth. Rather than deny all long age one had only to deny the age of fossils.

One can only deny the obvious for so long and such belief remains to me an example of rearguard action on the part of a literalist who reluctantly accepts the validity and incontrovertible value of science and who progressively concedes that literalist position in the face of the obvious.

Unfortunately this does mean that you are seen by the likes of Bill Sorensen as eroding the authority and inerrancy of EG White and the bible.

I make no secret of the fact that I think the neo-orthodox position has a much more consistent view of biblical authority and is consistent with a properly defined science based on methodological naturalism.

Pauluc Also Commented

The Adventist Accrediting Association to Approve LSU’s Accreditation

Sean Pitman:
Oh please.You do realize that there are difference kinds of “heavens” in Hebrew understanding? This is not a statement arguing that God made the entire universe…

Come on Sean.

Why obfuscate and attempt to railroad the discussion onto what is the heavens and recycle your nonsense about YEC being restricted only to an absurd YUC. The question is about an old earth.

What the statement clearly and unambiguously says is that the earth (and heaven whatever you may say that is) was created in the 6 literal days of creation. There is absolutely no wriggle room for an old earth in this statement. It says earth and heavens ie something beyond the earth and all that lives in them. BOTH earth itself and life in 6 days.

It seems very clear that Ted Wilson sees Ellen Whites statements about infidel geologists as referring to all and any belief that would make the earth itself older than 6000 years as I inferred he probably would.

We are in the same boat here. I think that you, me, Goldstein, Davidson, Younker, Pfandl and others will all have to admit we are out of step and we live with the consolation that it is a non-creedal statement of belief that has a preamble that does allow a minority view that the earth is billions of years old. Or have you changed your mind on the age of rocks so you disagree with me.

It does raise an interesting question for Goldstein. He will certainly have to curtail his ridiculing of YEC.


The Adventist Accrediting Association to Approve LSU’s Accreditation

Sean Pitman: I don’t see that happening since the YEC position is not and has not been favored over the YLC position in the Adventist Church – either by the church leadership or by conservative academics. And, even if, for some very strange reason, the YEC position were to be clearly supported by the language of FB#6, that wouldn’t change my position. What it would do is force me to no longer advocate for my YLC views if I were to become a paid representative of the church. I would actually have to advocate for the YEC position as the most reasonable interpretation of the Genesis account – something I could not do. Therefore, I could not work for the SDA Church in good conscience.

Note the suggested wording from Autumn council

“God is creator of all things, and has revealed in Scripture the authentic and historical account of His creative activity. In a recent six-day creation, the Lord made ‘the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them’ and rested on the seventh day. Thus He established the Sabbath as a perpetual memorial of His creative work performed and completed during six literal days that together with the Sabbath constituted a week as we experience it today. The first man and woman were made in the image of God as the crowning work of Creation, given dominion over the world, and charged with responsibility to care for it. When the world was finished it was ‘very good,’ declaring the glory of God.”

http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2013/10/16/good-news-bad-news-day-annual-council-diary-day-five

Well Sean it now seems from the clear statement that you are indeed not orthodox adventist

“In a recent six-day creation, the Lord made ‘the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them’ and rested on the seventh day”

Seems pretty clearly YEC not YLC to me.


The Adventist Accrediting Association to Approve LSU’s Accreditation
@Sean Pitman:

Sean I can see yet again why you have never found anyone to explain the science to you. I join the ranks of those who have tried and dismally failed.

I truly am way too sanguine in once again trying to discuss issues of science and faith. If I clearly cannot communicate the idea of ignorance of process as a confounder in statistical analysis without being accused of believing in magic I do not deserve to be given access to your site.

Grace and peace to you.


Recent Comments by Pauluc

Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?

Bob Helm: With that said, I find your views to be spiritually dangerous and often scientifically weak. I detect a lot of smoke in your posts, but very little light. I hope you will continue to ponder these issues and try to have an open mind.

You are most welcome to your opinion and I know you would like nothing better than that anyone who takes Christianity and the Bible seriously but not literally to just go away. It is much better not to know of any possible problems with one current views. It very hard to get to the science when we cannot even agree on what is science. What passes as science on this site is so completely dismissive of its methodological basis and history and is entrained in a specific supernatural world view that allows arbitrary acceptance of any observation as miraculous. I think Roger’s paper may well be relevant to Adventist that believe that Christianity has and must respond to a careful study of physical reality by reconsidering its interpretations of the word of the Lord, but as Sean has indicated you are exception to that characterization. I still do not really understand why you should be interested at all in any science. It seems a bit messy to worry about facts. It really seems an unnecessary bother to argue whether the precambrian/cambrian boundary or the upper cenzoic (is that really what you meant?) as the evidence of a divine intervention.

Dont worry I do have an open mind which is why I still peruse this site to see how more knowledgable fundamentalist Adventists think. I wont worry you further.


Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?

Sean Pitman: So, you do see the need for a police force and a military to maintain civil society, but somehow Christians should not provide what is an otherwise necessary part of that civil society? I’m with Abraham Lincoln on this one when he noted the inconsistency of such a position – like Orthodox Jews paying others to turn their lights on for them on Sabbath

On that logic you should not have any issue with working on Sabbath in any profession serving 24/7. Be that computer support, utilities firefighters. Those giving up those jobs because of inability to have sabbath observance were all deluded. They as Christians should be prepared to “provide what is otherwise a necessary part of civil society”

You cant have it both ways. You cant because of a moral postion claim that Adventists should have exception from working on Sabbath and at the same time deny me the right to consider immoral some occupations that may be very utilitarian in a world full of selfishness and the human acts of evil that comes from that.

Lets for a moment step back from lala land. Where are we and where did we come from on this thread?

1] You posted a rehash of all your usual arguments in response to an article about the more mainstream Adventist positions that may impact the way Adventism reacts to conventional science. All very straight forward.
2] The contention was that Adventism has accepted process for the orgin and evolution of the inanimate world. The birth and death of galaxys and stars and planets in black holes supernova and impacts of spiralling planets. This is where it gets really strange.
3] You contend that Adventism has always accepted the conclusions of that process but then expand on your view of the process which involves a little bit of order and natural law but large amounts of magic. God waited a few billions years until the interstellar material generated by the big band condensed into planets onto which God created life mature and complete. This included Heaven the place of his throne-room which he populated with physical being angels which it is implied have both mass and composition and metabolism.
4] When it was suggested that the same processes and natural law resulted in life on this planet this was claimed inconceivable and would never be done by any process involving life and death. Instead the life we see now is in reality designed to live for ever and has be chemically changed because it is deprived of a particular form of nutrient from a tree that existed on the Earth some 6000 years ago.
5] The inconguity of practicing medicine by the principles of process of natural law and the technology resulting from both the processes of the innanimate and the animate world rather than accepting the much more important process of divine intervention seems to be completely obsure.
6] When someone says that the process of life and death that gave us the physical substance of our universe is also the basis of the creation of life here he must be animal hating sadistic psychopath who cannot belieive in a God of love and grace and is lying when he says that non-violence characterizes the children of the heavenly father for one must always recognize that peace and freedom are only obtained over the bodies of 1/3 of the angels of heaven and the eternal physical and violent struggle against those who would practice violence.

I really cannot understand you Sean. Your ways are way beyond me. I am just sorry that Bob seems to be drawn into your twighlight zone.

Grace


Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?
@Sean Pitman: sorry but your curious amalgam of magic and biology is not really comprehensible to me as a biologist or as a Christian . it. is neither logical or biologically feasible


Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?

Sean Pitman: However, according to the Bible and Ellen White, before the Fall God specifically directed nature so that all sentient life was protected in a manner that there was no suffering or death. By eating from the “Tree of Life” God provided constant renewal and regeneration that worked against what would otherwise be inevitable entropic changes, decay, and death. It was by deliberately stepping away from the true Source of eternal life that mankind stepped away from God and into the full workings of mindless natural law alone – which does in fact inevitably lead to suffering and death.

And this interpretation is precisely why you need a theodicy. Where is the justice in killing all for the sake of the sins of one woman+man? It makes no sense logically. If they were conditionally immortal because of eating of the tree of life then did all the animals in all the world congregate around this tree like beasts around a water hole on the serengeti. how exactly do you as you are wont to do translate the account into a literal reality. And which beast had to come and eat. Or was it symbolic? Oh now that’s a thought.


Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?

Sean Pitman: Come on now. Even I can imagine limitations to reproduction or the turnover of sentient carbon-based life. Surely you can at least imagine something similar? I know God can since such a world is described in the Bible and in the writings of Ellen White. Think about it…

Of course I have. This is not simply about reproduction. That is trivial. This is about metabolic process. Show me a carbon based life form that does not grow or metabolize anything and I will show you an organism in stasis as a spore “living” millions of year in amber. That is; effectively dead.

Real life cannot exist without metabolic process in a carbon based world and God has sanctified all this by a process of making good out of evil from the death of one comes life for others. Just as in the biological world so in the spiritual. By his death we have life. Just as God sanctified the practice of sacrifice of appeasement practiced by most cultures for thousands of years before and showed that in the Judeo-Christian tradition these same acts of sacrifice were emblematic of a monotheistic God that would become incarnate and bring life from death. So also he took the preceding accounts of creation derived as they were of the mesopotamian valley and recast it as an account of the monotheistic God who is above all but comes and dwells among us to become one of us. Participating in our life and death but showing us the importance of the transcendent life of the spirit that supercedes carbon based life and its inherent death. It is no fairy tale of 6 impossible things before breakfast. It is not pie in the sky by and by. It is rooted in a real world and it is about the transcendence of love and grace that is acted out in a real physical world by the incarnate God and us as we follow as His disciples.

That is the message I get from the images and visions of the Canon and EG White. But of course I read it for the message that it conveys not as a scientific text. That is where we fundamentally differ.