Unfortunately I do not think that Doug Batchelor’s sermon does …

Comment on The SECC stands for something by Victor Marshall.

Unfortunately I do not think that Doug Batchelor’s sermon does justice to the cause he espouses. This is one reason why those who oppose his view jumped so vigorously on his presentation.

Though his sermon is titled “…A Biblical Perspective.” He lost me right in the first minutes of message. Example:

“she instead of listening to the clear instructions she had received from the Lord and from her husband not to take from that forbidden tree,…

A new freedom, new power, was being offered to her by
the devil; he said, “Don’t listen to what God said. Don’t listen to what your husband said. They’re hiding something from you…

Then she brings it to her husband and offers it to him and man now [defers] to his wife; instead of leading, he submits. And he takes her advice and all the problems that you see in the world today, both in our relationships and in the world, spring from this interruption of God’s design for the relationship between God and man and woman…

Sin came into our world as a result of man neglecting and women disregarding the husband’s leadership role.”

No where do I read in the Bible (or the Spirit of Prophecy)that:
1. Adam gave clear instructions to Eve not to partake of the tree.
2. The Serpent said, ‘Don’t listen to what your husband said.’
3. Adams sin had to do with abdicating his leadership role.
4. All the problems in the world result from the violation of this
leadership role defined before the fall.
5. Sin came into the world because of the violation of man’s leadership

In his zeal to substantiate the post-fall ‘headship principle’ (A very real Biblical principle I agree with) he does an injustice to the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy (in his own words he, ‘overshoots the mark’).
Nowhere does it say that the warnings given to Eve (that were also no doubt given to Adam as well) were not only conveyed by divine agencies – but also by her husband in a leadership capacity. Nowhere does it indicate that Eve’s sin had to do with disobeying her husband. Nowhere is it indicated that the fall of man was due to a violation of Adam’s leadership role.

Bro. Batchelor totally ignores the references to a thorough pre-fall equality that Ellen White speaks of:

“Eve was created from a rib taken from the side of Adam, signifying that she was not to control him as the head, nor to be trampled under his feet as an inferior, but to stand by his side as an equal,…” PP 46

“In the creation God had made her the equal of Adam. Had they remained obedient to God–in harmony with His great law of love–they would ever have been in harmony with each other; but sin had brought discord, and now their union could be maintained and harmony preserved only by submission on the part of the one or the other.” PP 58

It is no coincidence that Doug neglects to mention these statements.

While it is of course extremely noteworthy that the Southeastern Conference has called for discipline and accountability in Doug Batchelor’s case(with the same principles that educate truth is calling for in the LSU case) – the two cases are somewhat different.

As already mentioned, womens ordination is not part of the fundamental beliefs. Amazing facts is a supporting ministry of the church not an actual financial/political entity of the church. Does Batchelor receive a pay check for pastoring the central Sacramento church (I heard he did does not)? Batchelors sermon was boldly proclaimed in the public arena. The LSU professors comments were not intended to be public – hence they can always spin what they said and lie about their detractors.

Educate truth should try to avoid the appearance of hypocrisy in this case. Batchelor is plainly stating that he opposes the decision of the church in allowing women to be ‘commissioned.’ Educate truth has strongly defended the importance of employees supporting the decisions of the church (right or wrong). Just because Doug Batchelor may not receive a pay check from the church, does not mean that (as a major representative of the church) he does not have a responsibility to honor its decisions. If this is not a fundamental belief then why would a faithful member feel compelled to oppose the church authority in public?

It is clear from Doug’s presentation that he does believe this issue should be a fundamental belief – and that it is at the root of sin coming into the world. Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to use other means for this issue to be further examined or revised by the world body than to oppose the church’s current decision in public – and before unbelievers?

Victor Marshall Also Commented

The SECC stands for something

Ron, I’m a believer in a 6-day creation week in the relatively recent past–but frankly you scare me! I can understand why Ricardo Graham would be reluctant to contact you.  

I concur.

Your tone and spirit are disturbing – and I work with men who most people would consider to be very frightening. The ones who are converted rarely exhibit this kind of consistently virulent behavior. People can rarely tolerate this level of intensity for long. So often what passes for ‘righteous indignation’ is really not righteous. I myself am not immune from this malady.

Also, I thought Shane had previously admonished Bob once before for posting repeatedly successive posts. Its not necessary to get your point across.

The SECC stands for something
@Sean Pitman, M.D.:

Obviously its much easier for SECC to call for the accountability of an independent minister in another conference – than a large university tied economically and politically directly to SECC (with the administration, whole departments, multiple professors, constituency involved etc.).
Nonetheless, the gravity of what has been happening at LSU should obviously warrant a response from SECC leadership. The silence is defining.

One side note – it is interesting that in 1995 the constituency of SECC voted in favor of LSU’s decision to ordain women in opposition to the world church’s decision at Utrecht. One of the women ordained was Madelynn Jones-Haldeman a major proponent of ‘Progressive Adventism.’ This is part of her definition of Progressive Adventism:

“Depending on the interest and concerns of the individual member, progressive Adventism espouses open dialogue in a free press, academic freedom for its theologians and scientists,… and an expectation that change in religious belief and practice may come if that is where the evidence persuasive to the individual believer leads.”

If a majority of those in SECC (leaders included) have embraced this progressive paradigm, then no wonder they are not concerned about evolution at LSU.

Recent Comments by Victor Marshall

Last Thursdayism
“The deepest students of science are constrained to recognize in nature the working of infinite power. But to man’s unaided reason, nature’s teaching cannot but be contradictory and disappointing. Only in the light of revelation can it be read aright, ‘Through faith we understand.’Heb.11:3” – Ed.134

Last Thursdayism

Last Thursdayism
@Sean Pitman:

As if all of your previous statements were not enough – here you come with this outrageous statement:

But I do deny that the Bible is the final authority. I don’t think that it is the final authority.

I think it is plain enough now for all to see that the founding scientist of EducateTruth, who has vigorously been seeking to have LSU tow the orthodox Adventist line – is himself heterodox when it comes to the most foundational of Adventist beliefs!
Not only have you equated science with faith, you have supplanted Biblical authority with scientific authority. Isn’t this exactly in essence what theistic evolutionists do?! Is it possible that one who incessantly declares others to be ‘blind’ would himself be blind to his own hypocritical presuppositions?

Seventh-day Adventists are ‘people of the book.’ They claim the Protestant principle of ‘Sola Scriptura’ as the very foundation of their faith. You are not a Sola Scripturist. By your own standard, if you were employed by the Adventist church, you yourself should consider employment elsewhere.
This is indeed a most grave and serious ironic twist.

If the issues are not yet clear enough I will here quote one of the denominations most preeminently orthodox theologians. You will find that his clear and definitive statements are diametrically opposed to your own:

“A fundamental principle set forth by Scripture concerning itself is that the Bible alone is the final norm of truth, the primary and absolute source of authority, the ultimate court of appeal, in all areas of doctrine and practice… The principle of sola Scriptura implies two corollaries: the primacy and the sufficiency of Scripture….”

“Paul likewise rejects human “knowledge” (KJV “science”; Greek gnōsis) as the final authority (1 Tim 6:20). Both OT and NT writers point out that since the Fall in Eden, nature has become depraved (Gen 3:17-18; Rom 8:20-21) and no longer perfectly reflects truth. Nature, rightly understood, is in harmony with God’s written revelation in Scripture (see Ps 19:1-6 [revelation of God in nature] and vv. 7-11 [revelation of the Lord in Scripture]); but as a limited and broken source of knowledge about God and reality, it must be held subservient to, and interpreted by, the final authority of Scripture (Rom 1:20-23; 2:14-16; 3:1-2).”

“2. The Sufficiency of Scripture. The principle of sola Scriptura implies the further corollary of the sufficiency of Scripture. The Bible stands alone as the unerring guide to truth; it is sufficient to make one wise unto salvation (2 Tim 3:15). It is the standard by which all doctrine and experience must be tested (2 Tim 3:16-17; Ps 119:105; Prov 30:5, 6; Isa 8:20; John 17:17; Acts 17:11; 2 Thess 3:14; Heb 4:12). Scripture thus provides the framework, the divine perspective, the foundational principles, for every branch of knowledge and experience. All additional knowledge and experience, or revelation, must build upon and remain faithful to, the all-sufficient foundation of Scripture. The sufficiency of Scripture is not just in the sense of material sufficiency, i.e., that Scripture contains all the truths necessary for salvation. Adventists also believe in the formal sufficiency of Scripture, i.e., that the Bible alone is sufficient in clarity so that no external source is required to rightly interpret it.”

“Adventists maintain the rallying cry of the Reformation–sola Scriptura, the Bible and the Bible only as the final norm for truth. All other sources of knowledge and experience must be tested by this unerring standard. The appropriate human response must be one of total surrender to the ultimate authority of the word of God (Isa 66:2).” – Richard M. Davidson, ‘Interpreting Scripture According to the Scriptures:Toward an understanding of Seventh-day Adventist Hermeneutics.’ BRI

Not only do you seem diametrically opposed to foundational Adventist theology. You also appear (for all intents and purposes) to be fundamentally opposed to the purposes and goals of EducateTruth itself.

“4. More important than all of these is that the Bible find its place as the ultimate authority on all it touches upon within the classroom…… The bottom line of this controversy is not about creation vs. evolution, but authority. Does the Bible inform our science or does science inform the Bible? This question lies at the heart of this controversy.” – Shane Hilde

In light of this further unfortunate irony – perhaps you should seek employment on another web site.

I encourage you to reexamine the basis for you faith and prayerfully surrender it to the Word of God – not scientific reason.

“When we come to the Bible, reason must acknowledge an authority superior to itself, and heart and intellect must bow before the great I AM.” (SC 110).

Last Thursdayism
@Bill Sorensen:

More “sure” than what? More sure than Peter’s testimony. Peter’s testimony is helpful and helps us believe that Jesus is the Messiah. But even Peter’s testimony is not adequate to affirm Jesus and who He is. We must necessarily turn to “Moses and the prophets” and validate Jesus as the Messiah based on their testimony.

Simply put, Moses is the final authority in all matters of doctrine and faith. If it is not in harmony with Moses, it is false. And this includes Jesus and His ministry.

Very good Bill.
I like to look at it this way as well. Moses said that, “at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.” We have the two witnesses of the Old and New Testaments – each one establishes the testimony of the other – both are further established by a third witness – the Holy Spirit. These three witnesses are sufficient to establish truth.

The bible affirming itself as the final authority is the same as God affirming His own authority.

Another interesting parallel passage in the Bible is, “For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself.” In this passage we have the concept that God is a sufficient witness for Himself. Of course, in a sense, He is also actually three witnesses isn’t He!

Last Thursdayism
@Bill Sorensen:

The bible presents its own evidence. It is self affirming.

If you deny the bible is the final authority on its on self affirmations, then you are simply not a bible Christian.

The bible does not try to “prove” everything. Something are simply stated as a fact. Especially things that are not “proveable” by science and/or human experience.

Science and human experience may be helpful, but they are not the final word and it is a mistake to try to affirm every jot and tittle of scriptual teaching by such “proof”.

Well stated Bro. Sorenson.