Comment on Michigan Conference takes substantial action in LSU conflict by Justin.
I wonder how AToday guys would spin this news?
Justin Also Commented
Michigan Conference takes substantial action in LSU conflict
Some years ago, I read a short exposition on unity & division written by A.W. Tozer, which helped me to see through the false premise of the so-called “unity” argument. I’d recommend it to all:
DIVISIONS ARE NOT ALWAYS BAD
When to unite and when to divide, that is the question, and a right answer requires the wisdom of a Solomon.
Some settle the problem by rule of thumb: All union is good and all division bad. It’s that easy. But obviously this effortless way of dealing with the matter ignores the lessons of history and overlooks some of the deep spiritual laws by which men live.
If good men were all for union and bad men for division, or vice versa, that would simplify things for us. Or if it could be shown that God always unites and the devil always divides it would be easy to find our way around in this confused and confusing world. But that is not how things are.
To divide what should be divided and unite what should be united is the part of wisdom. Unions of dissimilar elements is never good even where it is possible, nor is the arbitrary division of elements that are alike; and this is as certainly true of things moral and religious as of things political or scientific.
The first divider was God who at the creation divided the light from the darkness. This division set the direction for all God’s dealings in nature and in grace. Light and darkness are incompatible; to try to have both in the same place at once is to try the impossible and end by havng neither the one nor the other, but dimness rather, and obscurity.
In the world of men there are at present scarcely any sharp outlines. The race is fallen. Sin has brought confusion. The wheat grows with the tares, the sheep and the goats coexist, the farms of the just and the unjust lie side by side in the landscape, the mission is next door to the saloon.
But things will not always be so. The hour is coming when the sheep with be divided from the goats and the tares separated from the wheat. God will again divide the light from the darkness and all things will run to their kind. Tares will go into the fire with tares and wheat into the garner with wheat. The dimness will lift like a fog and all outlines will appear. Hell will be seen to be hell all the way through, and heaven revealed as the one home of all who bear the nature of the one God.
For that time we with patience wait. In the meanwhile for each of us, and for the church wherever she appears in human society, the constantly recurring question must be: What shall we unite with and from what shall we separate? The question of coexistence does not enter here, but the question of union and fellowship does. The wheat grows in the same field with the tares, but shall the two cross-polinate? The sheep graze near the goats, but shall they seek to interbreed? The unjust and the just enjoy the same rain and sunshine, but shall they forget their deep moral differences and intermarry?
To these questions the popular answer is yes. Union for union’s sake, and men shall be brothers be for a’ that. Unity is so devoutly to be desired that no price is too high to pay for it and nothing is important enough to keep us apart. Truth is slain to provide a feast to celebrate the marriage of heaven and hell, and all to support a concept of unity which has no basis in the Word of God.
The Spirit-illuminated church will have none of this. In a fallen world like ours unity is no treasure to be purchased at the price of compromise. Loyalty to God, faithfulness and truth and the preservation of a good conscience are jewels more precious than gold of Ophir or diamonds from the mine. For these jewels men have suffered the loss of property, imprisonment and even death; for them, even in recent times, behind the various curtains, followers of Christ have paid the last full measure of devotion and quietly died, unknown to and unsung by the great world, but known to God and dear to His Father heart.
In the day that shall declare the secrets of all souls these shall come forth to receive the deeds done in the body. Surely such as these are wiser philosophers than the religious camp followers of meaningless unity who have not the courage to stand against the vogues and who bleat for brotherhood only because it happens to be for the time popular.
“Divide and conquer” is the cynical slogan of Machiavellian political leaders, but Satan knows how to unite and conquer. To bring a nation to its knees the aspiring dictator must unite it. By repeated appeals to national pride or to the need to avenge some past or present wrong the demagogue succeeds in uniting the populace behind him. It is easy after that to take control of the military and to beat the legislature into submission. Then follows almost perfect unity indeed, but it is the unity of the stockyards and the concentration camp. We have seen this happen several times in this century, and the world will see it at least once more when the nations of the earth are united under Antichrist.
When confused sheep start over a cliff the individual sheep can save himself only be separating from the flock. Perfect unity at such a time can only mean total destruction for all. The wise sheep to save his own hide disaffiliates.
Power lies in the union of things similar and the division of things dissimilar. Maybe what we need in religious circles today is not more union but some wise and courageous division. Everyone desires peace but it could be that revival will follow the sword.
I agree that the emphasis should be on biblical creation. But our students sometimes find themselves attending non-adventist graduate schools to read science. Is there anything wrong teaching them about EVOLUTIONâ€ but emphasize Biblical Creation and then ask teachers and students to take stand for Biblical Creation in their teachings and writings. Are we not going to teach about sin because sin is not one of our values?. By allowing our teachers to teach evolution and students to learn about evolution, they will be able to speak eloquently and convincingly the question is raised by non-adventists. The school will be wrong if it teaches that the world came through evolution but there is notthing wrong to create the awareness about Satanâ€™s tricks. Lack of knowledge can lead to death. Also, if we decide not teach our people about Satanâ€™s tricks, Satan will find a way of teaching them by emphasizing what it(Satan) believes. (Quote)
I think you misunderstand the situation @ LSU.
LSU biology professors have been teaching that evolution is the best & only viable explanation for the origin and existence of the world, and denying the creation account of Genesis 1 & 2. They have been very insistent about this and was propagating their “belief” to our children in that school. And the school administrators are protecting them. This is the root of the problem.
Nobody here has any issue with our schools introducing the evolutionary theory to our students as a “theory” and also providing them with the biblical worldview of the special creation that convincingly counter this absurd kooky theory of evolution.
Mr. Gallimore has directly, blatantly, and undeniably undermined Fundamental Belief #14, while on the churchâ€™s dime. He must immediately resign or be fired. (Quote)
Why directing this to Elder Gallimore? The whole Michigan Conference Executive Committee has done this, and I am glad!
Anyway, this is a familiar ploy blaming those who stand up for what we agreed to believe. Who has shattered the unity of the church in the first place – except those who have been teaching & propagating the evolutionary theory to our young people in stealth all these years.
Recent Comments by Justin
“Don’t go backwards to interpret Genesis as allegorical or symbolic”
“The Great Controversy Theme” – he actually mentioned this!
Praise the Lord and Thank you!
Oh, how long I wanted hear this kind of sermon from the GC president!
Elder Ted Wilson is Our New General Conference President
Here is a AToday post that reveals the current mood of liberals (aka Adventists in name only): “Educatetruthers will be dancing on LSU’s grave.”
Justin, I donâ€™t know your background but it is probably not very different from mine. I once believed as you believe- htat â€œevolutionâ€ refers only to really substantial change. But if you would sit down with real science papers (in botany, in physiology, in marine biology, in evolution, or whatever the topic) and actually read them, as I was compelled to do as a student, you would learn that scientists speak all the time of evolution in a microevolutionary sense. I know you donâ€™t want to believe this and I know there is probably nothing I can say to convince you of this but that is the way it is.(Quote)
I do know evolutionists refer to small intra-specie “change” as evolution. However, this they do in express purpose of their attempt to postulate from it the validy of macro-evolution, which is non-existent and cannot be proven scientifically. That leap of the faith is what many of us do not buy.
If what naturalistic/theistic evolutionists all mean by “evolution” is just and only this type of small changes within the same speices, there exists no problem. However, even you would not admit that’s the case.
Do you honestly think what these LSU biology teachers have been teaching in their class is just the validity of this type of micro-evolution?
‘Yes, Creation!’ at the General Conference Session
Geanna Dane said: When you write â€œEvolution holds that â€œsurvival of the fittestâ€â€“the strong devouring the weakâ€“is both the norm and the ultimate good in the saga of lifeâ€ are you suggesting there is some other explanation for antibiotic resistance in bacteria? Are you suggesting there is some other explanation for insecticide resistance in scale insects? Remember- your issue should be with abiogenesis and long-term change, not all forms of evolution.
“Antibiotic resistance in bacteria” and “insecticide resistance in scale insects” are merely examples of adaptation (or mutation, or micro-evolution) that never changes bacteria or insect to other species. They still remain as the same type of bacteria or insect. This is not the issue being discussed here.
The issue is the “macro-evolution” that proposes the inter-specie leap – from a simple to complex specie morphing.
What evolutionists – whether be they naturalistic or theistic – do mean by “evolution” is this macro-evolution, and they use the example of “micro-evolution” or adaptation to prove the case for “macro-evolution,” which is, if we think about it, a classic case of bait-and-switch.
Clifford Goldstein: Seventh-day Darwinians, Redux
David Kendall said:
While I might consider Goldsteinâ€™s article to a classic bait-and-switch (he evokes the Seventh-day Darwinist bogeyman without actually referring to it, unless he is referring to the Catholic and other non-Adventist Protestants writing in Physics and Cosmology, the book he is reviewing),…(Quote)
I disagree. Goldstein just pointing out that the philosophical or religious underpinning of these Catholic scholars’ arguments are the very same one which carries those Adventists who advocate the theistic evolutionary theory – whether they themselves realize or not.
What they are basically saying, in my view, is: “Honey, I shrunk God!”