Well said Doug. In 3T the chapter on Laodicea – Ellen …

Comment on Open letter to General Conference by BobRyan.

Well said Doug.

In 3T the chapter on Laodicea – Ellen White asks if it is “Christlike” to expose sin in the camp — sin that brings the frown of God on the entire camp for failing to deal with the “few” that are in open rebellion.

Her answer is “whom I love – I rebuke”.

I think the solution God gives in the case of Achan is worth considering.

in Christ,


BobRyan Also Commented

Open letter to General Conference
@Sean Pitman M.D.:

You’re mistaken when it comes to God’s Law. Jesus himself excused wrongful acts of the ignorant saying that if a person didn’t know of the wrongfulness of a thought or act, they wouldn’t be guilty of sin (John 9:41).

It is therefore only when one knows that something is wrong, and deliberately does it anyway, that one is guilty of sin. And, only God clearly knows what someone really does and does not know or has or has not deliberately rejected or refused to know… i.e., sinned.

“To him who knows to do right – and does it not – to him it is sin”.
James 4:17

“The one who knew his masters will – and did not get ready for his coming or act according to his will – will receive many lashes” Luke 12:47

in Christ,


Open letter to General Conference

I do not understand how an SDA educational institution can place on the faculty one who is not an SDA. What’s happening here?

I recall seeing a comment about LSU hiring a Muslim professor. My guess is that other SDA institutions may have a few people in the non-SDA category as well.

However in my view — hiring a non-proselytizing non-SDA professor is less of a problem than hiring an SDA that then goes on to evangelize-for-Darwin all the while offering to demonstrate to students the model for compromising Adventism with evolutionism.

in Christ,


Open letter to General Conference
@Rich Constantinescu:

Ella Simmons: “Ellen White says, and we must hold on to this, that education and redemption are one. If our schools are not thoroughly and uniquely Seventh-day Adventist they should not exist. We have no reason for them other than that they are thoroughly Seventh-day Adventist. Then that indicates that in order to give Seventh-day Adventist education we need, we have an imperative for, Seventh-day Adventist – committed, practicing, Seventh-day Adventist – faculty, leadership and staff. We have all been in a position in which individuals have been hired into our schools who have not been Seventh-day Adventist. We appreciate our colleagues, but either they betray themselves as good Christians by teaching what we believe if they’re not Seventh-day Adventist, or they will betray us by teaching something other than Seventh-day Adventist belief in our schools. It is clear from Genesis to Revelation that academics and spirituality are one. The divisions that you hear about, that we read about are false. They are work – a tool of – the devil. Clearly. I could go on and on but maybe I should let someone else have a point on this. We have a responsibility to make our schools, all of them everywhere, thoroughly Seventh-day Adventist.” Ella Simmons – General VP, General Conference (01:04:16 – 01:05:53) (emphasis supplied).

Ella begins with a story about her own experience – attending a NON SDA university and dealing with evolutionist-centric course work in a respectful Christian manner.

WE are not talking about creating SDA institutions that function as a public university preaching non-stop darwinist dogma however. Not a direction that we want to go and we are not talking about sustaining or maintaining any rogue university that leaps off into that wrong-headed direction.

Ella’s quote above deals with overtly non-SDA professors (hired as such) who would be false to their own denomination’s beliefs were they to teach pure Adventist doctrine – and would be fals to the SDA university mission and purpose – were they simply to infiltrate the school with their non-SDA denomination’s views.

Mark Finley makes a good point about “no academic freedom” when it comes to agreeing to teach at an SDA university and to conform to the mission of that university in every respect.

He then gives examples of other non-SDA private universities where a simila “stand on principle” is taken by the board of directors in order to preserve the mission of their respective schools.

in Christ,


Recent Comments by BobRyan

Academic Freedom Strikes Again!

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!


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