Well done this time Sean Pitman! You are right …

Comment on If the Creation Account Isn’t True… by Ron D Henderson.

Well done this time Sean Pitman! You are right there. I read the Adventist Review and sent a response. Here is some of what I wrote, folks, “Even if no one believes any more, Mark has to stand firm and true. The message of Revelation 14 challenges this atheistic teaching head on…” I forget all, but this was the gist of it. We have nothing to fear in our belief in God’s Word, in its account of the world’s origins. To what else can we turn? To turn anywhere else is to abandon the faith given to us by our forefathers the apostles and that would be folly in its fullest sense.

Recent Comments by Ron D Henderson

The ANN Highlights LSU’s Dr. Lee Grismer – An Evolutionary Biologist
Ken, I see you have missed my point. I never said that science cannot be empirical and that it must be biased. If you re-read what I said you will see that I am referring to ‘the interpretation of evidence.’ The issue is not science. As I said once, science is neutral. How science is explained is where the issue comes forward. We explain the evidences of science from our own worldview; especially do evolutionists try to hug the discipline as their sole jurisdiction. Those who do not agree with then are branded ‘ignorant,’ ‘religious,’ and so forth. I wish evidences were allowed to speak for themselves; but this is not permissible among the scientific community in our secular world. So while empirical evidence is fine in itself, sadly, the onlooker interprets it according to his worldview. Aren’t the great theories of Einstein being challenged today? I wonder why, Ken? Is it not true in our secular world, that when evidence points to God then that is religion and is unacceptable? but when it seems to point to the evolutionary model, then that is good science?!!

Beyond the Creation Story – Why the Controversy Matters
I see, Ken you are getting to know about our church; that is good. Let me say, Ken, I have never had any issue with Sean, barring that discussion on ‘reason.’ I do not know what Sean believes or teaches. I have never had any contact with him that I am aware of. I used to know a Pitman from the West Indies, I believe Grenada, years ago, do not know whether he’s the same person.

As regards prophecy, since you mentioned EGW and ‘worms of for food,’ there’s something known as ‘conditional’ prophecy where it will be fulfilled at the time delivered if all conditions are met.

For example, the case with Jonah and Nineveh in the Bible; God told him to tell those Ninevites that they will be destroyed in 40 days due to their wickedness. However, they repented and sought God’s mercy, so he accepted their repentance (that’s mercy) and postponed the destruction. The text brings this point.

There are other examples in the Bible of conditional prophecy. EGW’s reference you quoted falls in that category; had the brethren rallied to the cause and sought God as they should have done the prophecy would no doubt have been fulfilled.

The thing about the church, ours, is that we follow biblical teachings that as an organisation we have written down. When anyone strays from this then we take measures, as any other organisation, atheists, secular, or religious, does and is entitled to do. Our church does not morph or change to please anyone who might have some ‘bright’ ideas.

However, we do believe that, and have experienced, individuals arise and seek to change the structure and beliefs of the church; Desmond Ford is one you mentioned.

How do we know whether they are right or wrong, you ask? We test them by the biblical beliefs which the body of believers have agreed upon and have written down. Is it a matter of interpretation? Well, regardless, we subscribe to the interpretation that the body of believers as an organization hold in common. We believe that this is the biblical approach to take concerning ‘new light.’

Of course we also believe that ‘new light’ is in order and can be accepted by the organisation. However, we do that by having the appropriate groups study the issue, communicate with the rest of the organisation, and if they all agree, then we vote that practice or belief into our system of beliefs at the appropriate time when the church meets in plenary sessions.

We are also aware that along the road of any organisation apostasy, rebellion, or disenchantment does arise. We have experienced, and are experiencing this in the church.

But we believe that God will guide the church through to the end, so we encourage members to stay on board in spite of the rebellion or apostasy of others. Hope this sheds some further light for you.

Everyone is free to believe whatever he or she wishes. However, if you join a body of believers, and are baptised, you are bound to continue in the beliefs you have previously ascribed to.

You may have other thoughts, that’s fine; but if you teach these, and they are opposed to what the church believes and teaches, then you create an obstacle that in the end will destroy your membership if you persist in teaching and promoting those beliefs.

Again, this is the normal procedure for dealing with people who try to turn their church, their organisation, their club, or whatever entity, unto another path or direction. This procedure of dealing with such individuals is a biblical injunction.

Cheers my friend,


Beyond the Creation Story – Why the Controversy Matters
Ken! I appreciate your point as always; and as always I have a counter to make. This situation in our church is an ongoing episode though out the annals of historical time. Men arise with erroneous views arise and seek to destabilize, subvert, and destroy the very organisation that gave them birth and future. It is not new. Protests are in order, as was Luther’s and the reformers. Your comparison with Camping is actually out of place, however. Certainly he cannot be likened to Behi, and others who have spoken out against the scientific organisation of which they are part. And certainly science will not die due to protests of others-be it good or bad. What you do not know, my friend, is that this church will survive, as will science, simply because God is in charge. The same God which to you at present is but a mist. We speak what we know and have experienced. Soon you will hopefully understand this point!


Beyond the Creation Story – Why the Controversy Matters
Correction on the texts in my previous post. That should be Job 11:7 and Ps. 132:5 should be removed. Thankfully I could reason that one out!

The Adventist Accrediting Association is Still Reviewing LSU
Let us not forget that God is in charge of this work and of his church. And yes, we do suffer for our negligence, procrastination and compromise. But God is still in charge. If the men at the helm of his church on earth are delinquent and refuse to rock the boat, then they will be removed in His good time. In the mean while we must be faithful and do all in our power to correct the situation in our sphere of control, regardless of the ‘feelings’ of the ‘peace, peace’ lovers in the church.