Dr. Westphal, you must be new to the discussion. …

Comment on The Reptile King by Phillip Brantley.

Dr. Westphal, you must be new to the discussion. Very few Seventh-day Adventists understand the rules and conventions of science and biblical hermeneutics. I recommend that you read the following to inform yourself about what we are discussing:

1. My essay posted on the Spectrum Blog dated 10/24/10 and all footnoted references, particularly the Kitzmiller court opinion and the Andrews University Theological Seminary’s statement on creation.

2. Jeffrey Kent’s essay posted on the Spectrum Blog dated 04/26/11.

3. The essays on hermeneutics written by Richard Davidson that you can find online here: http://www.andrews.edu/~davidson/bibliography.html. The essay in which he gives his personal testimony is especially interesting, because he relates how upside down appears right side up, black appears white, and wrong appears to be right to critics of the sacred text.

4. The essay written by Mark Finley in Adventist Review a couple months ago (I don’t have the cite but you can find it referenced on this website), giving careful notice to his hermeneutical focus.

5. The essay written by Clifford Goldstein in Adventist Review a couple months ago (I don’t have the cite, but you can find it referenced on this website).

I have been commenting on these issues for close to a year and my analysis has never been seriously challenged much less refuted. What I have advocated all along and do so again herein is orthodox Seventh-day Adventist theology. These are not open issues.

What is an open issue is what strategies can be implemented to affirm the faith of students studying mainstream science.

Phillip Brantley Also Commented

The Reptile King
Bob Ryan, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You accuse me of arguing that the Bible is “nonsense” and “lunacy.” Aren’t you concerned that people might think you’re a bit out of touch with reality for making that accusation?

And you claim that I conflate hermeneutics with epistemology. Again, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

If the study of hermeneutics is too difficult for you to understand, as it obviously appears to be, let me encapsulate everything in a nutshell for you:

The Seventh-day Adventist Church believes that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. Accordingly, the Church’s hermeneutics, its interpretation of and regard for the sacred text, and its method of doing theology, demand consistency with that presupposition. To that end, the Church in 1986 formally rejected the hermeneutic of criticism, knowing very well that such criticism is inconsistent with the presupposition that the Bible is the inspired Word of God.

To everyone’s regret, you and other Educate Truth proponents together with the theistic evolutionists have embraced the hermeneutic of criticism regarding Scripture’s relationship with external science data. I can see that you are confused and are not fully aware of what you are doing. I do not want to be harsh with you but merely point out the inherent flaws of your methodology, which is unacceptable to Seventh-day Adventists.

I have otherwise enjoyed this discussion, which I think has run its course. This concludes my participation for the time being.

The Reptile King
Charles, if I correctly understand your questions, then my answer to each one is Yes. I do not claim that my arguments are strengthened by my personal doctrinal soundness. But you asked me the questions and I have responded.

You should be able to answer my good friend David Read’s convoluted query in no more than two sentences. Something like this: Conflict resolution literature and data that is external to Scripture has no evidentiary basis in our assessment of the truthfulness of Matthew 18. We accept the counsel of Matthew 18 at face value, understanding the contradiction that inheres in criticizing (putting to the test, critiquing, questioning, seeking to validate, seeking to invalidate) what we believe to be the Word of God.

The Reptile King
EMK, I invite you to read T. Joe Willey’s May 20, 2011 essay on the Spectrum Blog about the data compiled from the student surveys at La Sierra. His essay cites the raw data, which you can examine for yourself. I think you will conclude that despite press accounts to the contrary there is not much there that is disturbing.

I have seen little to no evidence that La Sierra science teachers are promoting theistic evolution, although I accept Professor Kent’s representation that such may have occurred in the past. I do not think that any of us should assume the role of prosecutor or defender of the science teachers at La Sierra. This role is best assumed by Adventist Accreditation Association, which is in the best position to gather evidence, interview people, and work in a constructive way with the La Sierra science teachers. I believe that AAA is entitled to deference.

Notwithstanding the deference I give AAA, I do opine that AAA has stumbled in effecting a resolution to the controversy. When you see the AAA site committee composed of Ted Wilson-quality conservatives recommend a full term of accreditation and the AAA board by secret vote reject that recommendation, then confusion predominates to everyone’s detriment.

I believe our limited role is to discuss what an Adventist science teacher should teach in science class and what faith-affirming steps can be undertaken on behalf of science students.

That Adventist science teachers should teach mainstream science and accord it factual validity to the degree warranted by the natural evidence is not an open issue. What is an open issue, something that someone with your experience can address, is what faith-affirming steps can be undertaken on behalf of students who study science.

The reason there is so much hysteria is that many Seventh-day Adventists are uneducated, under-educated, and mis-educated about the relationship between science and religion. This is dramatically illustrated by the posted article in which a perfectly appropriate lesson about what science tells us about the origin of birds is erroneously represented to constitute the promotion of theistic evolution.

Recent Comments by Phillip Brantley

Strumming the Attached Strings
Dr. Pitman, you (or some other editor) unfairly edited my last comment and the comment that I responded to, so I am forced to wipe the dust from my shoes and leave you and others to stew in anger and confusion.

[Attacks on Shakespeare and the like are off topic and are distracting to the purpose of this website and will not be published – not even in the comment section. The same is true for other topics that many often attempt to post on this website – such as those dealing with homosexuality, abortion, women’s ordination, the personal morality of one’s opponents, etc. – ET Staff]

Strumming the Attached Strings
I appreciate the comment posted by Richard Myers, because it reflects the often-overlooked fact that a major basis for the agitation against La Sierra University is fundamentalist opposition to university education. []

Critics of La Sierra University should ponder whether their agitation is based on knowledge or the fear that accompanies ignorance. I sense a lot of fear. Fear is not conducive to cerebral thought and learning. Fear also stunts one’s self-awareness ego.

Critics of La Sierra University should adopt the meekness of a criminal defendant. You have to place trust in someone, particularly your attorney, even if you do not fully understand everything your attorney knows.

Strumming the Attached Strings
Dr. Pitman, I do not expect you to fully understand the California Supreme Court opinion or my explanatory comments. You have never learned how to think and reason like a lawyer. The law is much more mysterious to you than you realize.

I can explain a legal matter to you in all crystal clarity, but I cannot understand it for you. To respond to your last comment on the merits is fruitless, because I would just be repeating myself. I suggest that you read again the comments I have made on the various websites regarding this matter and La Sierra’s responsive statement.

Strumming the Attached Strings
Wesley Kime, you could learn something from Sean Pitman. He quotes what I wrote and does so fairly in one of his essays in which he mentions my name and discusses my views (regarding biblical hermeneutics and the relationship between Scripture and external science data). In contrast, you do not quote anything I wrote regarding the bond agreement. Instead, you misrepresent my views (in the eighth paragraph of your essay) in the strange lingo that you apparently find amusing.

It is elementary that boilerplate language has meaning that requires serious attention. The serious attention I give to the entire language of the bond agreement is evidenced by my review of the California Supreme Court opinion that explains what that language means. See, http://charitygovernance.blogs.com/charity_governance/files/california_supreme_court_2007_revenue_bond.pdf.

In your essay, you do not cite the Court’s opinion or quote and discuss the relevant language in the opinion. Instead, you invite innocent readers to surmise in their ignorance that La Sierra University is to be justly criticized for participating in the bond program.

Readers need to be reminded that the authority on California law is the California Supreme Court, not some novice who lacks appropriate feelings of embarrassment for making declarations on matters that are clearly beyond his expertise.

La Sierra Univeristy Fires Dr. Lee Greer; Signs anti-Creation Bond
I have just now read the responsive statement made by La Sierra University that is posted on the advindicate.com website.

Might I suggest to the critics of La Sierra University that a sheepish retreat and a period of self-examination might be appropriate?