Eugenie Scott is going to be far more alarmed when …

Comment on Eugenie Scott’s Letter of Alarm – “Evolution Under Attack” by Mary Shelton.

Eugenie Scott is going to be far more alarmed when Jesus comes! However, unless she invites the truths of His Word into her heart, she will have a lot of evolutionary company. The rocks and the mountains will have no answer in that day to the cry of despair from the godless who would make science their god. So sad. . .

Recent Comments by Mary Shelton

What does it take to be a true Seventh-day Adventist?
Sean Pitman:
I went back and read what you were saying about the teaching of creationism in our schools. Should have done this first as I see where I am not on track with your argument for empirical (got sp. right lol) evidence in our schools. That is, of course, the right thing to be done. I guess my difference with you would be that I find that much of Bible truths are faith-based, not proof-based. Much of the Bible seems like a fairytale without faith to believe, which is God-given. The difference between say believing in the Book of Mormon and the Bible alone is deep within the heart that no one but God can see and understand. It would not be sin to believe a lie if the third person of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit, were not available to every man to bring us into “all truth”. Anyway, thanks for your patience and courtesy.


What does it take to be a true Seventh-day Adventist?
@Sean Pitman.
No, I do not believe in feelings versus what EGW calls “living faith”. Even the devils believe and tremble. And they have the greatest imperical evidence but it does them no good. Why, because it is not mixed with faith. And I would suggest that there are more scientists, biologists, geologists, etc. who lack living faith and are essentially non-believers. I had a teacher once who taught that “believing is seeing” not “seeing is believing”.

But I do believe there is plenty of “imperical evidence” in the Word of God and life itself for the humble seekers of truth. Pride and prejudice, however, bar any true faith to take hold in the heart and if evidence were enough the scientific world would be preachers of righteousness instead of teachers of a godless evolution theory, big bang theory, etc. Nature itself, our miraculous bodies that produce life are all evidence for believing in the God of Scripture. The older I get, the more I am overwhelmed with imperical evidence and the truths of God’s Word. And I am not a scientist on any level and I believe the same evidence is available for anyone. So if that is what you seem to be referring to, I agree wholeheartedly. If you are referring to faith based on the imperical evidence of an earth billions of years old and man evolving from something in the ocean or whatever, then I do not agree because I take the Word of God as it reads and I don’t need a scientist proving what the Bible does not plainly teach. Faith comes first and without it, no amount of imperical evidence will lead to the belief of the Bible which leads to everlasting life. And that is based on the acceptance of the Holy Spirit to guide us into “all truth”. Those who believe and are deceived such as you described are no argument against those who believe unto salvation. They just prove the Bible true because it plainly teaches, sadly, that the majority of earth’s population both deceived believers and unbelievers for whom Jesus died will not be saved. All because of unbelief, not a lack of proof of imperical evidence.


What does it take to be a true Seventh-day Adventist?
@Sean Pitman:
“Even the babe in its mother’s arms may dwell as under the shadow of the Almighty through the faith of the praying mother. John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit from his birth. If we will live in communion with God, we too may expect the divine Spirit to mold our little ones, even from their earliest moments.”

Seems to me this gets right into the nature of Christ, a fascinating and important subject and since it was brought up I will comment. The above quote by you indicates how Jesus was from birth in a sinless state though born with our sinful human nature. He did not have our “propensities” to sin because He took our sinful nature upon His sinless nature and therefore had no past sinful propensities. Our nature was not His by right, He merely assumed it. He was born filled with the Holy Spirit just as we can be by accepting the new birth. To say as some believe that we are born guilty is an Augustinian theory which resulted in the Catholic doctrine of an immaculate conception.

Although we inherited Adam’s sinful flesh we are not guilty until we deliberately, consciously choose to sin. If that were not so how could babies be saved who have not reached the age of accountability to repent and believe? But many will be. They need a Savior too, all sinful flesh needs a Savior, and praise the Lord, we have one!


What does it take to be a true Seventh-day Adventist?
@Bill Sorensen:

Yes, I have not only read it but in our church chapel for two hours every Sabbath afternoon about 30 to 40 of us studied that book for five years without missing a Sabbath. I have heard such criticism of his book before but many see it much differently.

Paul says in 1 Cor. 2:2-5 “For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified.
I was with you in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling.
And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.”

Paul’s preaching was also considered “foolishness” to many but to some it was “the power of God” unto salvation.


What does it take to be a true Seventh-day Adventist?
Professor Kent

I agree, Jesus did gently chide Thomas but it is also true that Thomas had had plenty of “evidence” beforehand on which to base his faith in a sacrificial Christ but he, and the other disciples, did not base their faith on the evidence given. They not only had the Scriptures but the words spoken by Jesus himself. It doesn’t appear to me that “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe” necessarily mean there was no previous evidence does it?