@Geanna Dane: To David Read, Your message is highly judgemental, more …

Comment on EducateTruth.com promoted on 3ABN by BobRyan.

@Geanna Dane:

To David Read,

Your message is highly judgemental, more than a little contradictory, and downright chilling. You claim to be unwilling to “judge anyone for being seduced by Darwinian science” and “to impugn the motives of those who want Adventism to accommodate Darwinism.” …

Honestly I think you’ve lost your mind. …

You are, in fact, highly judgemental and intolerant of views that differ with yours. Don’t pretend otherwise.

The hyper-judgmental and condemning nature of your post — noted.

in Christ,

Bob

BobRyan Also Commented

EducateTruth.com promoted on 3ABN

@Michael Farris:

Thank you for reading my message. I’m not certain that I follow you. We are all on here discussing this issue, which opens discussion about what the Bible teaches about how to deal with believers. I am speaking as an SDA to SDA’s. I am sharing Scripture and reasoning this through with those who are willing to reason. And I’m open to the reasoning of those on here who may disagree with me. Obviously, we cannot settle church discipline on an internet blog. However, as church members we can think about these things together and reason with one another (comparing Scripture with Scripture).

Agreed.

I am simply pointing out that while we can use a web site format to inform fellow SDAs about what is actually going on in one of our institutions and to urge that administrators take action if they are even remotely responsible for making sure this does not happen – and failing that – to make sure it does not continue. We do what we can to urge them to do what God has called them to do … But I don’t see how we can get into the business of working with the local church for each of these individuals via a web site.

I am all for fully highlighting the errors of evolutionism, sounding the alarm when that worst form of infidelity creeps into our own institutions and urging constituents to take immediate action.

But I fear that we do ourselves more harm than good if we go beyond that in a web site venue.

in Christ,

Bob


EducateTruth.com promoted on 3ABN

1 Timothy 5:20
Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all, so that the rest also will be fearful of sinning.

It is interesting how this text was used in the life time of Ellen White.

However I still maintain that church discipline itself – (in terms of membership, holding office, association etc) is only applicable at the local church level.

in Christ,

Bob


EducateTruth.com promoted on 3ABN

@Michael Farris:

Where to begin?

You mention Ezekiel but do not point out the passages you have mind. Ezekiel is a big book with many messages within. When Paul is admonishing Timothy, he says more than what you imply. Also, keep in mind that when Paul is discussing fatherly appeal to the elderly, he is not talking about rebuking men who are openly in rebellion against the truth. Paul is very clear about how to deal with open apostasy (1 Corinthians 5:1-13). He states: “I wrote to you in my epistles not to keep company with sexually immoral people… But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner–not even to eat with such a person” (1 Cor. 5:9,11 NKJV). What do you say to this? Paul is very specific about how to deal with believers who are walking contrary to the truth (sounds like an oxymoron). And it is an oxymoron, which is why they are to be removed from the fellowship of believers. Paul is softer in his treatment of unbelievers (1 Cor. 5:10). This is because they do not have the oracles of God.

Those subscribing to evolutionary theory while claiming the name of Christ is equivalently diabolical. Evolution is a “doctrine of demons” (1 Tim. 4:1). Do not tell me I’m exaggerating to make you look bad. I’m emphasizing this point, to emphasize the fact that a rebuke is more than called for. We do not need to play patty cake with those who are worshiping the devil by spreading his doctrines in the church. In fact, Paul makes it clear that a work of judgment is to be done in the church with brethren who are walking in contradiction to the law of God: “For what have I to do with judging those who are outside [non-believers]? Do you not judge those who are inside [believers]? But those who are outside [non-believers] God judges. Therefore, put away from yourselves the evil person” (1 Cor. 5:12-13 NKJV). According to Scriptures, (@ Sean) we are to be able to discern if their is an “evil person” in our midst. This does not mean we can read the heart. But their are some sins that are obvious and when this is the case, we are in biblical jurisdiction to act accordingly.

Again, Paul does not suggest that we are to sit down and be fatherly or motherly or patient with an open rebel in the church. We are not “to keep company” with them. The apostle said: “put away from yourselves the evil person.”

You make some good points – however your suggestion can only apply at the local church level because that is the only mechanism the SDA church has for church discipline of a single member on issues related to conduct and apostasy.

So unless speaking to fellow church members in the professor’s local congregation – how does it apply on this web site?

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