.jpg)
.jpg)
|
Home
Opinion
Hoehn, Jack
2012
|
Sabbath and "Old Age"
Submitted: May 27, 2012
By Jack Hoehn
Perhaps the greatest fear Adventist Young Earth Creationists have with revising the chronology of Creation and age of the earth, is what it might do to our Sabbath. After all Exodus 20 with the Sabbath commandment is what we believe was written in stone.
I don’t find it helpful to argue if Exodus 20 or Deuteronomy 5 is the most authentic version of the 10 Words God spoke. Moses was inspired by those 10 Words1 and gave them to his people and us. Perhaps Moses after thinking about those Words for 40 years found another reason for Sabbath to share with his people in the Deuteronomy recounting? Perhaps when God rewrote them on the beautiful Lapis Lazuli2 tablets Moses made, God expanded His reasons for Sabbath?
In any case the Sabbath comes with two Mosaic foundations, Creation and Redemption. I fully agree that the Exodus 20 reason, the 6 Day creation sequence, is the first one. But you can also Sabbath to remember deliverance from slavery. Israel’s escape from Egypt took 7 weeks to get from the Red Sea to meet God at Sinai, so perhaps resting every 7th day commemorates the 7 weeks of their Redemption, as well as the 7 Creation Days?
What I don’t understand, however, is why the 7 day week with its Sabbath, has to be an “exact duplicate” of the creation week? Why can’t I accept the Sabbath as a Memorial of creation, even if it is not a Clone of the creation week?
July 4 is American Independence Day, and celebrates independence from rule of the English King. That day is an annual memorial of a process that took years.
Your birthday is a yearly memorial of a process that took 9 months (or longer if you count your parent’s courtship and marriage before you were conceived!) You were born on a day, but your birthday is a yearly celebration of a process much longer than 24 hours.
I am not asking you to accept that Creation took longer than 144 hours. I just want to know, if for argument’s sake, say each creation “day” took a month? or a year? or a thousand years3? or a day in Heaven, not on earth? etc. etc. etc. How does that destroy the validity of the weekly Sabbath?
I admit some may think this damages the Bible (more about this later) but first answer the question, does this destroy the Sabbath if we read Exodus 20:11 like this?
“For in six consecutive stages YHWH made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in it and he rested as the seventh stage, therefore YHWH gave the Sabbath day his blessing, and he hallowed it.”
Is Sabbath less precious if creation is longer and more complex than I thought before? No. Am I free from Divine obligation to keep it holy, if the proper chronology of Creation is Old Earth Creation instead of Young Earth Creation? I don’t think so. In other words each of us will still keep showing up for Sabbath-school and church every Sabbath won’t we?
“Ah yes,” Young Earth Creationists say, “but in Sabbath-school you are going to be in a heap of trouble because you are messing with the Scriptures! You are making them say what your precious science wants them to say, and God said ‘6 days’ and wrote it with his own finger in stone! So you can keep Sabbath if you want, but not in my Bible class, go start your own church and don’t mess with mine.”
I understand this feeling. I’ve felt it myself. But frankly the feeling was not Christ-like and I’ve had to repent of it. In its place I now have an earnest desire to know the truth of nature and the truth of scripture, and to interpret each of them in a way that will do honor to the God who reveals himself in both.
Here are a few books that may help explore what “six days” means both in Exodus 20:11 and in Genesis 1.
John C. Lennox, Seven Days that Divide the World, Zondervan, 2011. – A Christian Oxford don in the C.S. Lewis tradition ends his short and readable book on understanding the Bible creation days with this wonderful sentence, “It is high time for a Sabbath!”
David Snoke, A Biblical Case for an Old Earth, Baker Books, 2006 – A Christian physicist and astronomer gives both things you will agree with and things you may disagree with, but he is giving Biblical evidence supporting Old Age Creationism.
Hugh Ross, A Matter of Days, NavPress Publishing, 2004 – Astronomer and president of Reasons to Believe, directly addresses how creation-days can be understood in a fashion both true to the Bible and the facts of science4.
Brian Bull & Fritz Guy, God Sky and Land, Adventist Forum, 2011. A Seventh-day Adventist effort to understand the literal meaning of Genesis 1 for Moses’ audience, not what we read into it with our 19th or 21st century science.
Here in brief is what I have learned that lets me begin to synthesize the overwhelming evidence for an old earth and a long chronology of Creation with my Bible:
1.) Challenging my understanding of the Bible (for example expanding what I previously thought yom in Hebrew meant5) is not the same as challenging the truth of the Bible. God doesn’t change, but my understanding of his Word must.
2.) I accept Ellen White and her son’s direct instruction to not consider her writings the final word on questions of history, chronology, science, or doctrine6. She clearly was God’s advocate, but not his oracle. Her use of 19th century understandings of the mechanism of volcanoes, the origin of dinosaurs, or the age of the earth to defend the Bible from godless evolution don’t mean we are stuck with her tools today. We need to fight the same battle for the Truth, but use today’s science to do so.
3.) That all who believe in God as the Creator are my allies, even if we disagree on our ideas as to how and when he created. Claiming that my doctrine of creation is the only acceptable one is as foolish as maintaining that only vegetarians will go to heaven. (I speak as a life-long vegetarian!)
4.) Honest scientists are my allies, as I seek from science what God did, and from the Bible why he did it.
5.) Ellen White’s Great Controversy theme offers me a window to view the creation week as part of the extended conflict between Christ and Satan.
6.) John 1 presents creation as a conflict between light and darkness. It is Biblical to see each successive Creation Day as a new conflict between Lucifer and Christ, where each day starting in darkness ends with God seeing, “It was (now) good” five times and “It was very good” the sixth time!
7.) Sabbath for me is no longer a day to think briefly of a magical week 6,000 years ago. Sabbath is now 52 days a year to think deeply of the height, the depth, the breadth of a God who creates billions of galaxies. A God who fills those galaxies with billions of stars for 13.7 billion years to prepare for a place called earth.
I love living on that earth where I can watch the changes in a creation ordained in the manifold wisdom of God to demonstrate the difference between good and evil seen in nature and explained in scripture.2.) I accept Ellen White and her son’s direct instruction to not consider her writings the final word on questions of history, chronology, science, or doctrine6. She clearly was God’s advocate, but not his oracle. Her use of 19th century understandings of the mechanism of volcanoes, the origin of dinosaurs, or the age of the earth to defend the Bible from godless evolution don’t mean we are stuck with her tools today. We need to fight the same battle for the Truth, but use today’s science to do so.
3.) That all who believe in God as the Creator are my allies, even if we disagree on our ideas as to how and when he created. Claiming that my doctrine of creation is the only acceptable one is as foolish as maintaining that only vegetarians will go to heaven. (I speak as a life-long vegetarian!)
4.) Honest scientists are my allies, as I seek from science what God did, and from the Bible why he did it.
5.) Ellen White’s Great Controversy theme offers me a window to view the creation week as part of the extended conflict between Christ and Satan.
6.) John 1 presents creation as a conflict between light and darkness. It is Biblical to see each successive Creation Day as a new conflict between Lucifer and Christ, where each day starting in darkness ends with God seeing, “It was (now) good” five times and “It was very good” the sixth time!
7.) Sabbath for me is no longer a day to think briefly of a magical week 6,000 years ago. Sabbath is now 52 days a year to think deeply of the height, the depth, the breadth of a God who creates billions of galaxies. A God who fills those galaxies with billions of stars for 13.7 billion years to prepare for a place called earth.
1 In Exodus 34:28 the “10 commandments” are literally “10 Words”. As translated by Darby, “And he wrote on the tables the words of the covenant, the ten words.”
2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tablets_of_Stone
3 2 Peter 3:8
4 Hugh Ross’s organization at Reasons.org is a prime resource for many resources synthesizing the Bible with science in an Old Earth Creationism model. He professes some things (like inerrancy of scripture) that Adventists disagree with, but this makes his adherence to scripture truth even keener than he needs to be, so it strengthens his arguments.
5 Yom=the hours of a day with light as opposed to night; or 24 hours of one complete rotation of earth; or an indefinite period of time in past or future, as “the Day of the Lord”. There is no Hebrew word for Era, Age, Reign so they used yom.
6 http://www.whiteestate.org/books/mol/Chapt33.html#W. C. White’s 1911 Statement
________________________
Join in the discussion:
Log In to Post a Comment. Log In | Register
The Ten Words in Exodus are arguably found in that other account in Genesis where God created with a Word. In fact, arguably all of the commandments are found in the Genesis account, and the first four are all about man worshipping God through imitation. For example:
-
3rd Commandment (Ex. 20:7) says we are not to take the Lord’s Name in vain, and God named light and day, water and sky (Gen. 1:5,7); yet God asked Adam to name all the animals in imitation of Him (Gen. 2:19-20).
Finally, the Sabbath command is the clearest example of man imitating God. Yet, to suggest man’s work and Sabbath rest is the same as God work and rest is to equate man’s creative activities with God’s. That is dangerously a form of idolatry of the kind that caused the fall of both Adam and Lucifer.Adam did not cause the original, original sin - Satan did. There was already sin in the world before Adam ate the fruit. There was already a serpent, as well as a wilderness outside of the Garden. Adam was God's solution to the problem of Satan, but because Adam also didn't live up to the job, He ultimately had to come Himself in the person of Jesus Christ.
“It seems to me after reading the entire blogatory of affirmative comments and rebuttals on fundamental positions about Sabbath implications from our highly educated laity as wells as various ranks of church officials, that the principle of Sabbath has been absorbed into our system of worship, and it will stay whether in formal ritualism, or on a much elevated platform of persistently labored theological reflection and documented argumentation. But I feel that the time has come for a positive transformation in our interpretation and application of the eternal principles of Faith contained in our Fundamental Beliefs 28 without endangering the Unity and the Organization's structure and stability of our World Church. This is a perennial and an ever present concern for Church Leaders at the General Conference.
Incisive and provocative essay, Jack. There are many ways to look at the Sabbath commandment and emphasizing almost exclusively the one in Ex.20, we miss the other reasoning given to the Israelites: reasons that were more timely for them than a creation about which they had never known. Their slavery was still most fresh in their mind and delivery was far more worthy of their celebration than a long past event.
In a conversation this weekend with a close relative seen only occasionally, a graduate of 16 years' SDA schools plus LLU med school, now retired, he has been reading about the Sabbath and asked me a number of questions in a search for truth.
Why was the sabbath never commanded to Adam and Eve at creation? Why was the first command given them to be fruitful and multiply? Had God intended mankind to observe the seventh day why was its observance by man never recorded until Sinai, some two millennia later?
Why were the new, formerly pagan Christians in the NT never given any day to worship consider holy? Why is the only mention in Paul's writings about sabbath found in a list of annual, monthly, and weekly days formerly celebrated which were now mere shadows? Why did he say that "one man regards one day above another" so we should "let each man be fully convinced in his own mind" as "he who observe the day observes it to the Lord"?
The frequently quoted verse about the sabbath when Jesus was condemned for working on the sabbath was written at least a generation AFTER Paul, and he was addressing Jews in the Judaic law system which he and they were living under. Christianity was NOT simply a continuation of Judaism.
The one inevitable question in all this discussion about Sabbath:
]
Would there be a single Christian today; would there have ever been Christianity were it not for the Resurrection? This was the one event on which the entire edifice of Christianity was built. Not Creation; not sabbath, not the Ten Commandments, but the Resurrection. Christians began celebrating their reason for existence by meeting on that day. Which is more important as a day of remembrance: the probable date and questionable time of creation; or the one event, had it not occurred, for which there would be no Christianity?
Incisive and provocative essay, Jack. There are many ways to look at the Sabbath commandment and emphasizing almost exclusively the one in Ex.20, we miss the other reasoning given to the Israelites: reasons that were more timely for them than a creation about which they had never known. Their slavery was still most fresh in their mind and delivery was far more worthy of their celebration than a long past event.
In a conversation this weekend with a close relative seen only occasionally, a graduate of 16 years' SDA schools plus LLU med school, now retired, he has been reading about the Sabbath and asked me a number of questions in a search for truth. Why was the sabbath never commanded to Adam and Eve at creation? Why was the first command given them to be fruitful and multiply? Had God intended mankind to observe the seventh day why was its observance by man never recorded until Sinai, some two millennia later?
You seem to believe in source theory of JEDP? You would then know that Gen 1-2a comes from the Priestly (P) source, possibly written in the exilic period. This account was written after the JE account of the Ten Commandments in Exodus or the D account in Deuteronomy. As I have quoted to you previously, non-Adventist scholar J J Collins and others note that the whole purpose of the Gen 1-2a account is to end with the liturgical point about the Sabbath. It serves an etiological function for explaining the origin of the Sabbath, which was no doubt a pre-exilic practice.
Moreover, I personally don’t believe Adam and Eve are commanded to keep the Sabbath because the focus is about God’s Epoch Sabbath (which began at the end of creation and now continues forever more), not on mankind’s own weekly Sabbath, which is a perpetual image (as mankind itself is an image of God). Again, the priestly writers of Gen 1-2a didn’t need to write about Adam and Eve keeping the Sabbath because it was already expressly set out in the Ten Commandments.
Of course, if you reject source criticism, then Elaine’s whole point falls on its head.
Why were the new, formerly pagan Christians in the NT never given any day to worship consider holy?
I should put the onus back on you – why if the seventh-day Sabbath was abolished was there no express command to do so? The onus rests with you to prove one of the Ten Commandments no longer applies, not the other way around.
For the early Jewish Christians in Jerusalem, the exemption of the ceremonial practice of circumcision for Gentiles was a major theological issue that dominated a huge number of pages in the New Testament books (e.g. Acts 15). The Apostle Paul realised very quickly that if all Gentile men had to cut off the ends of their penises, his mission to take the Gospel to the Gentile world would not have many takers – perhaps understandably.
By contrast, the issue of weekly Sabbath-keeping as prescribed by the fourth commandment is notably absent from the raging debates of the New Testament for the simple reason it was not an issue at all. As noted in several places in Acts 13:42, 15:21, 17:1-4, 10-12, 16-17 and 18:4, Gentile God-fearers who believed in the Jewish God already kept the weekly seventh-day Sabbath, attending synagogues with Jews. As these texts attest, many of the first Gentile converts to Christianity were Greeks who were already attending synagogue as uncircumsised God-fearers and just happened to hear Paul's message preached on a Sabbath. Thus, there was no need for the Early Church to focus on Sabbath-keeping, because it was already an accepted practice by Gentiles and no barrier to their full conversion in the same way circumcision had been.
Given the reaction to the abrogation of the more Pharisaic Christians to the abolishment of ceremonial requirements for Gentiles, it is frankly inconceivable that one of the commandments in the Decalogue itself, written with the very hand of God, could have been discarded or transferred without even a murmur through the texts.
http://adventistcultmisconceptions.blogspot.com.au/2011/03/29-is-it-true-that-adventists-keep_11.html
Why is the only mention in Paul's writings about sabbath found in a list of annual, monthly, and weekly days formerly celebrated which were now mere shadows? Why did he say that "one man regards one day above another" so we should "let each man be fully convinced in his own mind" as "he who observe the day observes it to the Lord"?
You do not seem to understand the inherent and implied divisions of the Torah between Moral, civil and ceremonial laws, as espoused by the historic creeds of ‘mainstream’ Christianity (including Presbyterian, Roman Catholic, Anglican etc.)
The most commonly cited proof-texts used against Sabbath-keeping (Rom 14:5-6; Col 2:9-17) in fact appear to be references to Jewish feast-days, which were considered ceremonial ‘Sabbaths’ (Lev 26:32, 37-39). These feast-Sabbaths are distinguished from the seventh-day Sabbath, established at creation (Gen 2:2-3) and later enshrined in the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:8-11). For example, Yom Kippur is considered a ‘sabbath’ but will fall on Wednesday 26 September 2012.
The frequently quoted verse about the sabbath when Jesus was condemned for working on the sabbath was written at least a generation AFTER Paul, and he was addressing Jews in the Judaic law system which he and they were living under. Christianity was NOT simply a continuation of Judaism.
No, Christianity is not a continuation of Judaism and SDAs are not trying to be Jews. We keep the seventh-day Sabbath, because it forms part of God’s eternal Moral Law, instituted before sin even existed in Eden (Gen 2:2-3) and which will also continue in heaven (Is 66:22). However, we don’t keep Jewish religious festival sabbaths.
http://adventistcultmisconceptions.blogspot.com.au/2011/03/31-what-about-bible-texts-saying_11.html
The one inevitable question in all this discussion about Sabbath:
Would there be a single Christian today; would there have ever been Christianity were it not for the Resurrection? This was the one event on which the entire edifice of Christianity was built. Not Creation; not sabbath, not the Ten Commandments, but the Resurrection. Christians began celebrating their reason for existence by meeting on that day. Which is more important as a day of remembrance: the probable date and questionable time of creation; or the one event, had it not occurred, for which there would be no Christianity?
Elaine, Christ did indeed rise from the dead but where in the NT does it say that this made it a day of remembrance? As non-SDA Evangelical-Dispensationalist theologian Wayne G. Strickland observed in ‘Five views on Law and Gospel’ (1996):
“There is in fact no Sabbath transfer or shift taught in Scripture. This constitutes a hermeneutical shift inasmuch as the meaning of the other nine commandments are not modified or qualified in this way in the New Testament. If the Decalogue is perpetually binding, including in the church age, how is it that this commandment can be eradicated or altered?” (p81-82) (emphasis added)
In any event, as a matter of historical fact, it is clear that the abolition of the seventh-day Sabbath was not instituted by the Apostles and Early Church but in fact was a more gradual process within Christianity, occurring over some centuries. As the 4th century Christian writer Socrates Scholasticus admitted, it was in Rome and Alexandria that the Sabbath was first beginning to be abandoned:
“For although almost all churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries on the sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, have ceased to do this.”
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbath_in_Christianity
Finally Elaine, you never did answer my question posed to you in Ervin’s post on this same topic – do you or do you not adhere to the historic ‘mainstream’ creeds of Christianity that clearly teach the Ten Commandments are God’s eternal Moral Law, and did exist in Eden?
This is not SDA propaganda – this is what Roman Catholic’s, Presbyterian’s and Anglican’s teach. The only difference is Adventists actually practice what they have long preached.
For one thing there is no compelling reason to revise our understanding of "Creation and age of the earth." The available data is consistent with our traditional understanding of the Genesis narrative. The only reason some want to abandon that understanding is because infidel scientists have decided that that the earth is millions of years old and that evolution is a fact. They haven't come to that conclusion because the evidence demands it. They have done so because they "cannot allow a divine foot in the door." The only way the evidence fits with evolution and the billions of years notion is if you force it to fit by accepting only conclusions that fit what you have already decided is true--and discarding as false, anything that doesn't fit. It's done all the time.
But for the Christian it goes beyond this. Once one goes down the evolutionary bypath, the way becomes filled with all sorts of pitfalls. With the evolutionary scenario comes a denial of a worldwide flood, an event for which there is abundant evidence. Other baggage includes the fact that Jesus and the apostles believed in a literal Adam and Eve and a literal flood. So were they wrong? All Scripture is given by inspiration of God. Why would God mislead His own son and His apostles? Makes no sense? The Genesis account is foundational, and once you start picking it apart the whole edifice of Scripture begins to totter. I don't buy the ridiculous suggestion, put forward by some, that Jesus didn't have as much knowledge of science as we do today. In His humanity He may not have, but His Father certainly did, and He said that without His Father He could do nothing. So those who take that position are basically saying that God mislead His own son. That's just preposterous.
So, my biggest fear is of an undermining of the authority of Scripture, rather than an undermining of the Sabbath.
If Jesus, or the apostles, had considered the days of creation to be metaphorical rather than literal, how would that have changed what they said. We often (at least in some circles) quote or allude to Greco-Roman mythology without in any way assuming that those stories were literally true. Perhaps we make a mistake in assuming that that which is presented as being literal must have been intended as literal. If the 'days' - and even the 'evenings' and 'mornings' of Genesis 1 were literary devices rather than diary entries, would that make God any less the Creator, or the Sabbath any less the memorial of creation?
Furthermore, so what if Jesus knew everything about science - what does that prove? The point is, even if He knew everything, he surely didn't share everything with His disciples. He clerely didn't tell them about DNA, about the world being round, about our solar system and galaxies, about gravity, planes, cars and automobiles, about Australia or the New World and a whole bunch of other stuff. Even if He did mention these things, the Gospel writers certainly didn't know about it, remember it or didn't think it important enough to record, given even the Gospel of John notes that there would be enough books in all the world to record everything Jesus said and did. (John 21:25)
In short, we can't take Jesus' silence on a topic as 'misleading us'. The fact that He was silent on the issue of neo-darwinian evolution should be an indication that He didn't consider it important enough to worry about. Therefore, why are you and other Christians saying the issue is so important that if you don't accept literal YEC you can't be a Seventh-day Adventist Christian?
And further Jean, who says you can't believe in evolution but also in a literal Adam and Eve? I don't deny the possibility that creation was a literal 24x6 period, nor do I deny the possibility that the whole Gen account is a metaphor or parable. However, I think it is possible that Adam and Eve were still possibly literal people.
Perhaps Adam was the first 'prophet', the man God chose to help undo the neo-darwinian struggle that is our world filled with suffering and pain. Only mankind has the capacity to rise about the neo-darwinian struggle that is our natural world. If you recall, Lucifer has already brought sin into the universe through his rebellion in heaven before the world even created.
In Eden before the fall, there was already the serpent-Satan, and there was already a wilderness outside of the Garden. Perhaps Adam and Eve's job was to help undo the damage done by nature? Ellen White herself claims mankind was originally created to replace the fallen angels. Jesus also talks about us being like angels in the resurrection, and Paul talks about our celestial bodies.
I am not saying which theory is right - I am just pointing out there are more than just the literal vs metaphorical models out there - if people took the time to look.
I'd like to urge people to not use the terms "Darwinian" or "Neo-Darwinian." Tying concepts of speciation and phylogenetic change, and even natural selection, to Charles Darwin adds a dimension of prejudice that seems to me to be divisive. First of all, Alfred Russel Wallace pointed out the possibility of natural selection to Darwin, and, while he recognized the merit of the concept, it is not clear that he had independently arrived at the same concept. Further, and even more important, neither of these fellas knew much about genetics and nothing at all about genomics. Although they recognized some of the seeds of the modern synthesis, they really did not understand much about modern biology. While it is fine to memorialize and celebrate what they actually did invent and discover, using their names (or just one of their names) as a label for evolutionary processes, seems to me to be inappropriate for either fans or detractors.
But let me ask, what can "a day" mean from a perspective other than the surface of the earth? How could "a day" exist on earth before the sun was created? A LITERAL reading of Genesis 1 presents many difficult questions. Aligning one's concepts about God with emergent empirical evidence should not be as perilous to real faith as it seems to be in the minds of some.
If the days in the Genesis 1 story are accepted as literal, 24-hour days, what is the length of a day when God told Adam that "on the day you eat (of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall surely die"?
Because it is recorded in the same book that Adam lived 930 years, was "day" a 24-hour period or an infinite length of time determined by God? "With the Lord, 'a day' can mean a thousand years, and a thousand years is like a day" 2. Pet. 28).
As for II Pet. 3:8, it doesn't say that God changes the meaning of the word "day" on a whim. It simply means that time means nothing to God in terms of how long it seems. He lives outside of time. He is. Having existed from eternity, a million years is like minute would be to us. It's all a matter of perspective.
Well, why should that principle be limited to Gen 2 but not Gen 1? Furthermore, doesn't the word day in Gen 1:5 mean only 12 hours, not 24 hours? So there is at least two different meanings of the word, even in Gen 1?
Furthermore there is no reason to understand it differently. It's only to fall into line with prevailing "wisdom" that anyone wants to find an excuse to interpret any other way.
"It doesn't say that God changes the meaning of the word "day" on a whim. It simply means that time means nothing to God in terms of how long it seems. He lives outside of time. He is. Having existed from eternity, a million years is like minute would be to us."
A more intereting juxtaposition of two opposing eisgetic interpretations would be hard to find.
And no Hebrew scholar is likely to insist that 'yom' anywhere must be literally 12 or 24 hours unless the context unequivocally points to that conclusion. Only context can distinguish between the various meanings of any word. The use of 'evening and morning' points clearly to the meaning of 24 hours, but nothing in the story itself demands that it be read as a 'scientific' or 'historical' account of creation. The different order of events in Gen 2, and the facts mentioned elsewhere of some created beings existing before the creation of the earth, should make us pause before deciding that "in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth and everything that is in them" is meant to be taken literally and factually as a summary of Genesis 1.
It appears the word 'day' means different things in the creation account, including:
- 1 x whole period of creation (Gen 2:4)
- The 12 hour period of daytime (Gen 1:5)
- The 6 x periods of creation activity, which does not actually require the sun (given it was created on the 4th day Gen. 1:14), and each of which ended with the formular evening and morning.
- God's Sabbath day, which is missing the formular evening and morning.
- Adam's period of life, being the same 'day' he ate the fruit (Gen. 2:17), which appears to be just under a thousand years (Gen. 5:5).
With these different uses of 'day' in the Gen creation account, it is funny that people seem absolutely certain it must only mean a 24-hour period.
I wholly agree with others who have pointed out the Bible is not wrong or the problem, it is how we are interpreting the Bible that is wrong and the problem.
As educational levels increase, it becomes much more difficult to make emphatic statements about unprovable assertions: assertions solely based on the Bible which was never written to be a scientific treatise, but the human experience with their god--as they perceived him. At the same time that the Bible was written, there were other religions that had other gods, other stories of creation and it's only a matter of one's birth that he accepts one and not the other. A little humility should be expressed, remembering that millions believe just as earnestly that their views are the right ones.
Because we are Christians, are we free to worship other gods, to create graven images or to use the Lord's name in vain because these commands only came into existence at Sinai and not at Eden? Of course not.
Hi I've always asked the question of how theistic evolution does not undermine the sabbath and to your credit you have tried. However your essay was speculative at best and has got so much eisegesis you could probably sell some on the black market! LOL. You also employ dubious analogies in trying to support your stance. You underwent your study with preconcieved ideas and presuppositions that I cannot believe you approached this objectively.
You said “For in six consecutive stages YHWH made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in it and he rested as the seventh stage, therefore YHWH gave the Sabbath day his blessing, and he hallowed it.”
That is your own interpretation that has not been corraborated by the majority of scholarship on the issue. I believe most hebrew scholars attest to the fact that the word day in Genesis meant 24 hours. But it is interresting to note that theistic evolutionists always admonish people to trust the intellectuals but when scholarship goes against them they are not honest enough to admit it! Inconsistency and hypocrisy are some of the very reasons I cannot support theistic evolution
I agree that it is certainly possible to read the word 'day' as meaning a 24 hour period, and perhaps that is even the most natural meaning of the word. But who says it is not an eisegesis to view the word as only meaning a 24 hour hour period?
- 1 x whole period of creation (Gen 2:4)
- The 12 hour period of daytime (Gen 1:5)
- The 6 x periods of creation activity, which does not actually require the sun (given it was created on the 4th day Gen. 1:14), and each of which ended with the formular evening and morning.
- God's Sabbath day, which is missing the formular evening and morning.
- Adam's period of life, being the same 'day' he ate the fruit (Gen. 2:17), which appears to be just under a thousand years (Gen. 5:5).
" Inconsistency and hypocrisy are some of the very reasons I cannot support theistic evolution"
As a creationist who dares to ask laymans question, I question if this exact reasoning why many scientists echew religion?
@Jean Corbeau
@Tapiwa Mushaninga
@Clifford Goldstein, Ted Wilson,
and all the other faithful Seventh-day Adventists holding firm to our traditions.
First—I get it, for I was you.
Second—I am not trying to convince you that you are wrong in your support of a short chronology of creation.
Thirdly—I don’t agree with the anti-Adventists who feel that when one breaks step with traditional Adventism, all Adventism is broken.
I write in defense of Adventism, although you may not yet understand this.
But I am not writing for scholars or theologians. I am writing for my mother, my uncles, my Sabbath-school class members, and people in big and little churches in Chipata, Zambia: Zomba, Malawi; Maseru, Lesotho; or Calgary, Alberta.
I am trying to help real Adventist understand that they can be comfortable in a church that allows different understandings of core truths. That thinking that more tithe can be used in the local church is not the death of stewardship; that women may be ordained is not the death of the gospel ministry; that creation simplified as six days is the introduction to creation, not the full story of creation.
What I want to say is—real Adventists, faithful, vegetarian, tithe-payers-- can understand creation took longer and is more complex than we used to believe, and still be Adventists. And to try and suppress change and growth in understanding of our core doctrines is not only unnecessary, but also very, very dangerous.
I know you have been taught that changing our understanding is the danger.
I just want to you hear me saying something different.
I don’t expect you to believe me until the Holy Spirit convinces you.
But I thank you for at least listening.
Jack Hoehn
Rather, what concerns me is when the Goldsteins, Wilsons and others posting on this blog make statements suggesting you cannot be a Seventh-day Adventist if you reject YEC. I really worry about young people, who go to university, become convinced of evolution, but then are told they must leave the Church.
I think that is just setting us for failure. We need people like you Jack, to start asking those big questions, about IF evolution is true, how can be reconcile that with our fundamental beliefs without throwing the baby out with the bath water. To that extent, I really appreciate your efforts, and those like you, who put themselves out there by at least asking the question.
But here's the rub, Jack: how can there be a plurality of understandings about a core belief? Can one have a different understanding about what day the Sabbath is, for example? Hardly. Can one have a different understanding about the Second Coming? I don't think so. They why must we allow for different understandings about creation? Especially when these different understandings cannot be deduced from reading the text. There would be no compelling reason to understand Genesis 1 in any other way than that the earth was created in 6 literal days--except for the fact that scientists tell us something different. It seems to me that scientists have become the gods of too many people. So, it really boils down to accepting the word of scientists over what Scripture says.
@Jean Corbeau
Please for clarity let us step back a moment from our current issues, and ask a historical question.
While another Christian believer thinks circumcision is painful and cultural; that mutton sold as a side business of the local temple of Artemis in Ephesus is as nourishing as that provided from the Jewish temple in Jerusalem; and that celebration of the resurrection can be done every spring on the same day as Easter celebrated by the local economy?
These are major behavioral issues, involving things God had commanded.
But the Holy Spirit has spoken. Jewish traditionalists and Gentile converts were one in Christ. None of these issues was to be a barrier to being a Christian; both opinions were to be permitted, in Christ.
Back to today. The Adventist traditional understanding of a short chronology for creation is a stumbling block for believers unable to ignore the accumulating solid evidence for an old earth.
They are asking you, aren’t you confusing our traditional understanding with a core belief? Don’t you see that the core is “Christ is the Creator of Heaven and Earth”, and the tradition is “we think it all happened in 6 days 6,000 years ago”? And while we might wish your traditional understanding was correct and are willing to listen to you support it, can we not remain brothers and sisters if we agree Christ is the Creator, but disagree on how and when He created?
Jack Hoehn
The difference is that we generally have differing/distinctive/divergent doctrinal beliefs, so we congregate with a community of believers with whom we are in most agreement; as a rule.
Seventh-day Adventists who do not believe that the world that we know was created by the words of God in six literal earth days are like Baptists who don’t believe in baptism by immersion; or Pentecostals who opposes speaking in tongues, or Catholics who…never mind, you get the point.
The problem is not so much the cognitive dissonance of their fellowship, or their inductive reasoning about “evidence;” but that they are actively (zealously?) trying to be influential.
Now, some will no doubt argue that “understanding” is all they seek; which I, for one, do not buy at all. It’s apparent that re-indoctrination is the goal.
Please correct me wherein I am mistaken.
I have preview problems too. Sometimes before editing is complete one touch of the keyboard posted the comment without correction. It functions better before.
Having read through the comments I had to smile at your comment "...we are all brothers and sisters in Christian love." When I look at fundamentalists like Jean or Goldstein worried about "core" beliefs I do not sense that their comments contain the least bit of "love" toward those whom they disagree. What I like about Jacks prose here is that there is a plurality of understanding of biblical texts. That will not change and greater Advenstism does not have to necessarily fragment because of these differences in viewpoint. I do get a kick out of statements from Jean that "he is", "God exists outside of time." Really? How does she know? The claims of "knowlege" of God by particular people is astounding. In the end all we have is a systematic methodology to investigate natural phenomena. What our understanding of the natural universe says about God is anyones guess.
Is it the "old earth creationists" who are trying to impose their beliefs on the YEC folk? Or is it the other way? Traditions trump scientific acceptance, plus the visceral fear that to even allow members to hold to a different interpretation of the Creation story is deemed heretical. Where is the brotherly love of the first church who accepted believers who were circumcised and those who were not; who accepted those who were convinced of "days" to be regarded as "special" and those who "regard every day alike; those who "have your own conviction before God," and those who wish to live under the law, and those who have been freed from the Law.?
"Why do you judge your brother? Or why do you regard your brother with contempt?
My main objection is when the evolutionary wing tries to paint the rest of us as ignorant, uninformed, or willfully blind. We are just as informed as you guys, we just see things differently. It has nothing to do with tradition.
Looking at the history and shape of Adventism, it has always had a wide diveristy of beliefs and a belief in progressive revelation. Furthermore, looking at FB#6 itself, I can't see anywhere that it explictly requires acceptance of a YEC model (which is no doubt why some within the Church want to change it to be more explicit). Moreover, the 28 FB are not a 'creed' anyway.
In short, what are about 'fundamental beliefs' that are non-negotiable, and what are beliefs that are essentially non-essential, which we can have interal diversity?
We existed as a church without having FB6 in our list of fundamental beliefs, and I am sure we would continue to do so if we dropped it, or left it vague. I prefer FBs that state no more and no less than the Bible does, and leave interpretation up to believers. To me, 28 FBs seesm excessive. 7, 10 or 12 would be far more biblical :)
- That Jesus in Michael the Archangel (which most SDAs have never heard of, and is not a FB).
- FB 11 Growing in Christ (which is new and controversial in that it has been used by some Adventist to promote 'Deliverance Ministries' and 'Strategic Level Spiritual Warfare', which most conservative groups (like Pippin from JYC for being essentially pagan) and liberal groups (for suggesting all mental illness us demon possession).
- FB 18 Gift of Prophecy (which most SDAs would believe, but many if not most in the way SOP was traditionally taught).
- FBs 22 and 23 Marriage and Christian Behaviour (where the Church no longer practically enforces its stance on divorce, and allows divorcees to hold Church office despite the injunctions in scripture and there being an entire chapter in the Church Manual about the issue).
- FB 24 Heavenly Sanctuary (where many Churches no longer practically teach 1844).
If the SDA Church disfellowshipped everyone who did not exactly believe its teachings on the 28 Fundamentals, we would be a very small church indeed. Rather than asking others to leave, if you feel so strongly on all these issues, there is always the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
Get back to the point, my reading of Jack's article is that to reject YEC is not to reject FB6. Rather, it is still possible to accept FB6 and accept (or at least keep open the possibility of) neo-Darwinian evolution.
You asked above of Elaine as to just when the formal elimination of the Sabbath commandment for Christians occurred. Actually Acts 15 strongly infers that the Sabbath was not a Jewish commandment that survived into the early Christian church.
25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
26 Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.
28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
This, of course, is the outcome of the Jerusalem council in which the necessity of first being true to Judaism in order to be welcomed as a Christian was not just studied, but hotly debated. It is instructive to us that the scripture declares that ‘it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon your no greater burden than these necessary things; That y abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which if you keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.’
Even these restrictions were not declared to be essential for spiritual reasons, but at most for social reasons, and in the end for reason of one’s personal wellbeing.
There are many wonderful reasons for engaging in Sabbath rituals, though certainly not to find favor with God. After all, Jesus declared that ‘the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.’ (Mark 2:27)
Methinks you do err, not knowing the Scriptures. Acts 15 implies nothing of the kind. The issue at hand in the time of Acts 15 had nothing to do with any of the 10 commandments (which, as you may remember, includes the Sabbath commandment). It concerned the ceremonial system, meats offered to idols, circumcision, and so on. To use your logic, the only commandment which survived was the 7th one, and we must be free to ignore the 6th and the 8th, along with all the "lesser" ones. Incidently, the issue of abstaining from blood wasn't even Jewish. It predated the Jewish race by hundreds of years.
Abstaining from fornication was for social reasons? Huh? The pagans loved fornication. It was fashionable and customary. It was accepted in the society of the time, probably even more so than it is now. Of course there were spiritual reasons for these guidelines, and Paul nailed it when he said, in I Cor. 6:18-20, that the reason to flee fornication was because our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit. Can't get much more spiritual than that.
http://adventistcultmisconceptions.blogspot.com/2011/03/29-is-it-true-that-adventists-keep_11.html
When Paul wrote: "Let no man therefore judge you....in respect of....the Sabbath day," consider that such a statement could never have been made by an inspired speaker of the OT times. That Christians are no longer under the obligation of keeping the Sabbath could hardly have been stated in clearer terms than Paul wrote in Col 2:16,17. It is absolutely impossible to evade the force of his words: "Let no man judge...." can only mean that the keeping of the Sabbath cannot be made the criterion for testing one's piety.
If Christ's death nullified the forward-looking ceremonies of His death, then
certainly His life nullifies the forward-looking ceremonies of His life. Sabbath was only given to the Jews, never the Gentiles; just as circumcision was an ethnic ritual given only to the children of Abraham.
If someone can cite a NT text requiring the new Gentile Christian converts to begin observing the Jewish rituals, customs, and ceremonies, please present it. Although Christians met in the synagogue, that was the public place of assembly, not limited to worship. The Christians are never recorded going to temple, as no non-Jew was ever allowed to do so. Now, if they had begun observing sabbath and circumcision, and dietary laws, they would have been welcomed, and accepted a Jewish proselytes.
No longer was Christianity limited to one's ethnicity; it became a universal religion. Why else would Paul have written: "One person esteems one day aboive another; another esteems every day alike. Let each he fully convinced in his mind." Can anyone imagine a writer before Christ and His Resurrection giving such advice? The Sabbath was more important than any other Jewish holy day and venerated for its special holiness and elevated status.
If the Gentiles were commanded to obey the ceremonial law after their conversion, then Christ would merely be grafting Gentiles into Judaism, rather than making in Himself one new organism from the two. By the cross on which Christ died for the infractions of all mankind against God's enduring moral Law and He died for the disobedience of the Jews to the provisional ceremonial laws. His death united all mankind into one and no longer was there a Law given for Jews, but the Law of Faith to all.
Tell me, on what basis can you prove the seventh-day Sabbath, as against Jewish feast sabbaths, are not part of the Moral Law? The onus rests with you, not us, to say part of the Ten Commandments no longer applies.
Lev. 23 lists all the feast and special days the Israelites were commanded to celebrate with their offerings. God said: "These are my solemn festivals."The first one listed is Sabbath: a "ceremony" is a day set apart to remember just as was the Feast of Tabernacles, the Feast of the Harvest, the Passover, the First Sheaf, the Feast of Weeks, the First Day of the Seventh Month, and the Day of Atonement. All these were given to the Israelites.
All these ceremonies were abrogated and became obsolete after Christ and the Resurrection. This is explained in numerous places in Paul's letters to the Gentile Christians. The Jews were free to practice if they wished, but had it been required of Christians where is there such admonition? For Christians, the Resurrection was their "birthdate" and Pentecost was God's blessing visibly seen.
Christianity is not simply an "add-on" to Judaism, but a new movement, no longer limited to one ethnic group and without the many rules and laws that had become burdens to the Jews. Christ came to lighten the load of religious and pious externals; no longer were external signs: circumcision (no Gentile was admitted to Judaism without first being circumcised), sabbath, temple sacrifices, and all the specific offerings associated with each feast day as noted above. Because it was a simple, universal religion it grew very rapidly. This could never have happened had the Jewish laws and ceremonies been required, it would have remained a "Jewish heresy" and would have faded in a century. The decision made by the apostles at Jerusalem that the pagan proselytes should be required only to abstain from immorality and from the eating of sacrificial or strangled animals was the most important decision in for the early church. Had they not exercised the courage to withstand the "Judaizers," Christianity would only be a footnote in history as one of the many Jewish groups during that time that did not survive.
You infer that sabbath is a part of the Moral Law. Where is that term ever used in the Bible? The Law is always used to refer to the entire Law, or "Moses' Law. There is never a division into moral or ceremonial. But if there were, the sabbath would be a ceremonial law as it is not immoral for someone not to observe the sabbath; morals are actions between humans: thus it is immoral to steal from another, to lie, to steal his wife (adultery), or to murder. Is your neighbor "immoral" because he does not observe the seventh day as sabbath?
All of the commandments of the Decalogue, except the fourth are mentioned several times in the NT; the sabbath is never part of such lists; nor is it ever a command issued to the new pagan proselytes. I have answered your questions; now show where the Jewish sabbath was ever given to them.
The Moral Law (The Ten Commandments)
Spoken by God Himself. Exodus 20:1,22.
Was written by God. Exodus 31:18; Exodus 32:16
On stones. Exodus 31:18.
Deposited by Moses "in the ark." Deuteronomy 10:5.
Deals with moral precepts. Exodus 20:3-17.
The Ceremonial Law (A temporary Jewish law)
Spoken by Moses. Exodus 24:3.
Written by Moses. Exodus 24:4; Deuteronomy 31:9.
In a book. Exodus 24:3, 7; Deuteronomy 31:24
Deposited by the Levites "by the side of the ark." Deuteronomy 31:26, ARV.
Deals with ceremonial, ritual matters. (See parts of Exod
The Torah, particularly in the books of Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy, the ceremonial laws are given. There are whole chapters on cleanness, incuding the quarantine of women after childbirth: two weeks for females, only one week for males. The "Mikvah" bath is built for Orthodox Jews today; there are laws governing all sorts of sexual behavior; dietary laws--milk and meat should not be mixed; and hundreds more--more than 600. Which of those should be operational today? Or is it not possible that Paul outlined specifically that the Law was done away with and became obsolete.
If some should be still observed, which ones? Romans 7 is a good place to begin.
How about the one's God wrote with his hand and spoke with His voice for starters.....
1. Those who want to keep the baby in the dirty bath water;
2. Those who want to throw out the baby with the dirty bath water; and
3. Those who want to keep the baby but throw out the dirty bath water.
It does make discussions somewhat problematic. Furthermore, when the two extremes engage each other, it no doubt justifies each of their positions. Trying to raise a moderate voice in this environment is very difficult, as no doubt Jack has discovered.
Looking at Jack's article in particular, there appears to be those very conservatives who suggest you must have a YEC viewpoint, otherwise the seventh-day Sabbath is made null and void. Then you have those very liberals who retort that the seventh-day Sabbath is indeed null and void, which only feeds the paranoia of the first conservative group. I think within that context Jack's point is being lost entirely, which is it is entirely possible to either keep or reject YEC but retain the core Adventist belief in the seventh-day Sabbath!
I think you have made a good assesment in your 1,2 & 3 above.
When I first began visiting AT and getting involved, my key aim was to engage in the discussions with an aim to adding a small voice to an effort to find better answers to the problems we face. I believe/d that in this kind of setting ideas shared would surely contribute to helping us "keep the baby and throw out some dirty water".
For me, I think my input has generally failed, or at least close to it, because it seems to end up with or lead to almost what I would call "attacks, and that can end to easily in a defensive type response, rather than a joint searching for answers. (There is a widespread denial that questions even need to be asked, let alone solutions saught)
I think Irvin and Jack make a great contribution. Perhaps made more effective by their (I think) approach of generally letting a thread run with little comment from them.
I have also valued your comments. I probably come across more now as a baby and bathwater chucker. Interestingly as I have been confronted with input here it has pushed my research. The results have done nothing to reduce my concern that we do indeed have major questions to address and find better answers for. It has also brought me to the conclusion that a middle ground is going to be elusive.
Cheers
I believe your conclusion that we have major questions to address (including many outside the area of creation/evolution), but that finding a middle ground - or even ground on which it is safe to address those questions - is going to be difficult. There are too many people who are deeply offended by the fact that the questions are even being asked.
Re evolution, I probably sounds like I am an OEC, which is not strictly true. I do believe by faith that YEC is the preferred model; however, I likewise know that 99% of scientists, including Adventist scientists, believe there is something in it, and as a non-scientists I can only ignore that my remaining totally ignorant. I do really, really hope evolution is disproven one day but that appears increasingly unlikely.
As a result, I have kind of 'cheated' in my own mind by constructing alternative theological frameworks in case evolution is true. After much soul searching, I have come to the conclusion that IF evolution is true, then really nothing in my faith really changes, not the Sabbath, not the Trinity, not eschatology, not any of the basic SDA fundamental beliefs. I have only come to these conclusions by asking the type of questions Jack is now asking, and which others try to persecute him for even asking.
This is what our theologians should be doing - asking these questions just in case - not simply smashing those who dare ask.
This is a compliment; not an insult: it seems to me that you are somewhat idealistically naïve about this.
Someone once said that “you’re not paranoid if they’re really out to get you.” Well, Seventh-day Adventists only consider the Sabbath to be significant because God claims to have set it apart for holy purposes after having completing His six-day creative activities. The holy purpose is a reminder of Who created us and Who delivers us.
Truly, Mr. Ferguson, Hebrews 4 explains everything.
Any undermining of the authority of the Bible, and/or of the reasons for the Sabbath permits no middle ground for us.
Therefore I heartily agree with Messrs. Barrett and Riley about any middle ground prospects. As time progresses, this will become clearer. (Again, please read Hebrews 4 whenever possible.)
http://adventistcultmisconceptions.blogspot.com/2011/03/30-cant-christians-just-keep-any-day-as_11.html
I am therefore not sure what point you are trying to make about referecing Heb 4?
The wider point you are no doubt trying to make, of course, is there are only two sides (yours and the rest); whereas, I actually see three sides to the debate (your 'conservative' of the YEC and Sabbath; Jack's 'middle' OEC and Sabbath; and the 'liberal' OEC and no-Sabbath). Perhaps that is what is illustrative of how you see the world - it is all black and white; with you or against you.
In your way of thinking compromise of the kind found in Acts 15 is probably never possible. In really is no different to early Christianity, which had to battle Gnostics on the one hand (our liberals) and Ebionites (our liberals) on the other.
If anything, Heb 4 could be used to support the type of argument put forward by Jack:
http://biblicalresearch.gc.adventist.org/Biblequestions/sabbathquestions.htm
What I don’t understand, however, is why the 7 day week with its Sabbath, has to be an “exact duplicate” of the creation week? Why can’t I accept the Sabbath as a Memorial of creation, even if it is not a Clone of the creation week?
Heb 4 is all about analogies, and how a literal seventh-day Sabbath is a memorial for a wider eschatological rest. But the GC scholars make very clear that in their view, the eschatological rest is NOT a replacement of the weekly sabbath rest, but a mere protype for it. Likewise, the weekly seventh-day Sabbath is not the same as 'God's rest' in Gen 2. Rather, the seventh-day Sabbath is a perpetual memorial or image of that Heavenly rest.
Nearly always overlooked is that the Judaic theocracy ended with Christ's Resurrection and a new system was initiated at Pentecost--on the first day of the week; thus the Resurrection and Pentecost were the twin memorials for the beginning of the observance of the first day by Christians. How the Jewish Law can be sustained as eternal with all the many, many explanations of Paul to the new Gentile Christian church is a great mystery. The Law was the guide for the Jews and served its purpose until Christ came; now that He has come, no longer is the Law our model, but Jesus, as representative of God. The Law could never reveal and represent God as could His Son.
One must ignore the texts that no longer should we judge about a day; that everyone must be convinced in his own mind; that there were very few rules laid down for the new Gentile Christians, and none ever mentioned a holy day.
I don't think an old age earth (and life) needs to destroy the Sabbath.
I do think it will and must challenge and reshape many, if not all our fundamentals. Even in the absence of the old age debate, I personally have worked my way through our doctrines one by one and none are without serious, and sometimes fatal, problems. So Stephen Ferguson, on that one, I would suggest your soul searching is not over:)
In "support" of Stephen Fosters concern. If we are to ever find a middle ground, it will look very different to how you see SDAism. That outcome will be either generational or divisive. By divisive I mean splits or simply people like (me) just find it easier to slip away and have our personal faith just that.
I made a comment to our Pastor the other day that I just hide on the back pew - "it's easier that way". Then I corrected myself "no...it's would actually be easier not to be there".
I see David Newman's interview that he says all are welcome to his church. Well, I would say come see the real world of Adventism. Particularly where, in the country we don't have the privilege of church shopping.
The middle ground will appear light years off center to people like Stephen Foster, but does not have to lose a sabbath. Below is a copy of what I wrote for a new, looser FB6 in Dr Taylor's blog. It's in keeping with Jack's theme, so I'll past it (some may not have seen it). It was in answer to the question should we change FB6?
"I say yes.
6. We stand in awe of nature in all its facets. Its beauty, harshness, life and death. We recognise the Biblical account of beginnings as a compelling message of man's reaching out to God and God's reaching out to man in the context of Man's place within nature. We respect its concept of time and the weekly cycle hinged around a seventh day as a reminder for us to allow the spiritual dimension of our lives to be refreshed in worship and honour of creation as seen in all the vastness of nature. We recognise that the symbolism of a Sabbath thus understood can be a powerfull reminder of our unique connectedness with all life and the respect we should have for one another."
Cheers
The Sabbath is first and foremost a memorial of the creative power and activity of God relative to this particular planet.
Actually, my having referred Hebrews 4 to you has to do with its entirety. It puts the Sabbath in balance and context with the bigger picture of salvation. It is the latter portion of the chapter that identifies and explains the role of Jesus in our theology; explaining everything.
It is undoubtedly no surprise to you that I am in “fundamental” agreement with the BRI regarding Hebrews 4.
Not having read the BRI statement on this prior to your referral of it to me, I fail to see how it required some sort of special exegetical skill to have understood it this way.
I understand that many people feel an educational, if not intellectual, peer pressure to give evolution the benefit of the doubt. Not many relish being considered as a willfully ignorant fundamentalist, or worse (I suppose). So I understand you hedging your bet. I must confess to you that I understand it more than I respect it.
I also understand the desire for a reaching a middle ground in this; but most conservatives are not looking for compromise. Unquestionably least of all conservatives like me. We are not in negotiations after all.
I’d like you to understand that I am agnostic regarding the age of this planet; because Scripture is silent about this.
I’d also like you to understand that I subscribe to the slippery slope theory. If you and Jack read the posts of Chris (and Elaine) you’ll understand why.
We are all groping our way in relative darkness, that’s for sure. But I would only consider science a lesser light when it agrees with the light in/of God’s word; not if/when it refutes it.
For example, I note that many non-Adventist theistic theologians are actually adopting very Adventist-like beliefs (e.g. Great Controversy, soul sleep, annihilation, stewardship, physical Second Coming and Resurrection, vegetarianism and yes even the Sabbath). Thus, I think the SDA Church could actually handle the change more than many other denominations could, if we had faith that God indeed is guiding our Church into ever progressing light and has not become an ossified ‘orthodoxy’ as the RC and other denominations.
I guess I am a doubting Thomas and am indeed hedging my bets on the issue, which I do understand probably annoys people on both sides of this debate. I do not really need nor desire your respect for that.
I guess I feel a little like King Zedekiah (or rather one of his followers) in the book of Jeremiah. On the one hand we have the ‘official’ prophet Hananiah, telling us everything is ok with smooth words, despite the clear ‘scientific’ evidence to the contrary. Then there is Jeremiah, the anti-establishment figure, the traitor, the person telling us our world view will soon end, so we better resign ourselves to it and adapt. In such an environment, I am happy to hedge my bets, to 'imprison' Jeremiah, rather than 'kill him' (as the conservatives would have) - just in case!
Yet I can understand others trying to find a compromise by seeing more symbolism in the Sabbath than a literal day at creation. No matter what we believe, an educated person would have to admit that the ancients did not have the same worldview as we do. I found the Brian Bull & Fritz Guy, God Sky and Land, Adventist Forum, 2011, to be the best explanation I have seen as an effort to understand the literal meaning of Genesis 1 for Moses’ audience and not what we read into it with our 19th or 21st century ideas.
All of this discussion is only novel curiosity. The real meaning of Adventist Christianity is making Christ the center of our lives and abiding in Him on a day-to-day basis.
Q: If you are a Christian, what was the birthday of Christianity?
A: The Resurrection. Without that momentous one-time event there would be no Christianity, none would be here unless they are Jews and it was to the Jews that God gave the Decalogue, called them His "Chosen People" and set forth hundreds of explicit laws which they were required to observe
Jesus was "sent to the House of Israel" and not to the Gentiles; they were accepted at Pentecost by the Holy Spirit, much to the dismay of the Jews present. Paul was appointed the "apostle to the Gentiles" and he and the apostles were very prescient in realizing that had the Gentiles been forced to be circumcised as the Jews were requesting, Christianity would have died before it was born. Circumcision was the initiating rite into Jewish Law required of any non-Jew before observing the Law. Had that not been abrogated, there would be no Christian church today. Because of that memorable decision, Christianity grew rapidly and by the mid-fourth century it was declared the religion of the Roman Empire.
Elaine,
You really should know all of this: Christ was sent by God in accordance with a plan established from the foundation of the world. Because God loves humanity so incredibly much, Jesus was sent to save the world. He was sent to those who were chosen by God to introduce and represent God to all humanity.
The Sabbath was set apart for holy purposes before there was a Jew. It was made for mankind, not Jews alone. It was given to mankind, through those who were chosen to introduce and represent God to all humanity, for the purpose of reminding mankind Who the Creator Is. It also reminds of how He created.
Given your experience, you’re myopic view of Christ and Christianity is almost breathtaking.
Brothers and Sisters,
It is not hopeless for Adventism to rediscover the new truth.
Truth has a way of revealing itself.
Most Adventists are not dishonest. But some are so fearful about admitting the unwelcome truth that we were wrong with short chronology, that we cling to our misunderstandings, and substitute bravado for honesty.
I am sure it is because we feel precious things are threatened by admitting we were immature and incomplete in our understanding of creation. It requires a new relationship to the Bible, it requires a new relationship to Ellen White. But it enhances our relationship with Jesus, and it greatly improves our ability to save the lost.
Those of us who once were blind, but now see, have an obligation to show how the present truth about creation enhances Adventism as a movement, and our personal relationship with Jesus.
Finally, for each commenter on these blogs, there are multiple readers, who read and think, and I hope pray, but don't comment. So don't judge the chance for change by the champions who are writing here. Keep telling the truth in love, keep exploring what it means to our spirituality, and lets keep trying to rescue our dear Adventist church from itself.
You assume wrongly that I am some naive african traditional, fundamentalist, conservative christian and how at one point you were me. All the conclusions I have reached were through hours of prayer, bible study and critical thinking. I feel your assertion is borderline condenscending in that you are ahead of me in the spectrum for the search for truth since you "used to think like me". Theistic evolutionists assume that if you oppose their position you are, uneducated, bigoted, afraid of change, ultra fundamentalist etc.
I hve done a thourough introspection and have tried to look at all view points objectively and still maintain that there is not sufficient evidence biblically to reject a six, 24hr, literal, contiguous, consecutive days creation. The pluralistic reality that you want to advocate for adventism has no bilical precendence and is not supported by the spirit of prophecy. I also do not subscribe to your revisionist view on SOP. I believe you are one of those who make the testimonies of "none effect." I aslo believe that your "truth" is not progressive but actually retrogressive. Your may try and project your pseudo science on the bible but I cannot in good conscience agree to this or Sit back and do nothing. I understand and appreciate that you might actually be sincere but error is not less dangerous simply because its propagator is sincere
Kind Regards
Tapiwa Mushaninga
Question - If (or when) there is a 'Christopher Columbus movement' and the evidence for evolution is so undeniable that even the SDA's own pet scientists have to accept evolution (and many do, even within the Geoscience Research Institute), how is your faith going to survive?
In such an environment, should we simply try the 'execute' the Jeremiahs in our midst (as the conservatives would have), given the Jeremiahs may in fact turn out to be right all along? I note in the Bible Jeremiah was only imprisoned after all.
Would they be happy or very sad that the Church has shut itself to new ideas, the redisovery of ancient paths, becoming a hierarchy rather than a movement - much like the Papacy and other Protestant denominations before it?
As I noted eslewhere, many non-Adventist theistic theologians are actually adopting very Adventist-like beliefs (e.g. Great Controversy, soul sleep, annihilation, stewardship, physical Second Coming and Resurrection, vegetarianism and yes even the Sabbath). Thus, the SDA Church is well suited to adapt to this crises.
If you don't believe me, read something like 'Christianity and Science' by notable Roman Catholic theologian John Haught, who appears to argue against many long held RC beliefs in favour of more Adventist-like beliefs - all because his theology has changed in light of Darwinian evolution. Another person I recommend is Michael Lloyd in 'Are Animals Fallen', who makes a Great Controversy argument, noting Lucifer's rebellion in heaven brought sin into the whole universe of creation, not merely into planet earth.
There is no limit of books that have been written on the "good vs. evil" theme which is as old as humanity. Movie buffs are attracted to this eternal theme. It is a favored theme of imaginative writers, including the Bible writers. Because the reception of Adventists to such writers who may align with SDA beliefs is greeted enthusiastically does not imply that Adventism's explanation of theodicy is true: agreement is not an imprimatur of all SDA religious beliefs.
State of the dead and sanctuary would be two that would be at least seriously reshaped imo.
Re others adopting SDA - like beliefs. Perhaps it is easier for us to truly evaluate a belief or position only when we are willing or able to let it go if need be. In other words, while we are defending it we can never truly evaluate it.
In that light, it may be that these people you speak of are better able to evaluate our teachings because they do so from a removed perspective. That is not to say they are right or wrong in what they affirm, but perhaps an indicator of some shapes our doctrines could take if we were to neutrally evaluate them.
Re state of the dead, I respectfully disagree. That is the one issue where a whole host of non-Adventist theistic scholars have now moved to align themselves with us in response to evolution, not against us. As you may or may not know, there is a very strong movement within segments of Roman Catholicism, Judaism and Anglicanism towards Christian Mortalism (i.e. our state of the dead). John Haught noted that evolution focuses the theologian's mind on the 'physical' aspects of eschatology, getting away from Platonic-pagan ideas of an etheral spirit world.
Re the seventh-day Sabbath, Jack has already shown that it can survive, if Adventists want it to (whether you want it to survive personally is not the point).
Re Great Controversy, I have already noted it is a theme also becoming very popular with non-Adventist theistic evolution theologians. All evolution does it focus the 'original original sin' back in 'heaven', at the beginning of time (or perhaps even before it an a multi-verse, which even serious athiest scientists such as Dawkins and Hawkins are advocating), with the struggle between Christ and Satan being far longer, and far bigger, than we used to think.
Re Trinity and Atonement, the notion that billions of years of suffering (as opposed to just 6,000 years) reinforces, rather than abrogates, the necessity of God becoming a man and sharing in that suffering, as people such as Jurgen have argued.
Re Stewardship, it is arguably enhanced by evolution, given Adam's job was to help undue the damage caused by Lucifer, to extend the Garden over the rest of the world, which was wilderness (i.e. the Bible itself attests the whole world was not perfect, only the Garden). That is why the Gen account is anti-Darwinian, compared with say ANE Enuma Elish of Babylon. Other non-Adventist scholars have also noted how eating clean animals and vegetarianism are important aspects of that message.
Re Ellen White, her status as a 'prophet' need not change, which is as a 'lesser light'. Scandals such as the plagerism and failed prophecy accusations have already (rightly) made many people view Mrs White in her proper context (not the mythical pedestal which she never asked for), and to view her according to the biblical model. Her statements can and should be viewed in light of the 1919 Bible Conference.
Re the Sanctuary, I think literary discoveries, re Antiochus IV and the rest, are a far greater challenger to that belief than evolution or science. I also think the problem has been the obsession with the date 1844, rather than the notion of a phased judgment process, with judicial and executive phases (which even RC and Eastern Orthodox believe)!
In conclusion, no doubt if strict YEC was abandonned in favour of open YEC-OEC, there would be some who would use that as a 'slippery slope' to justify challenging other FBs. You might also personally argue that other FBs should be challenged. But my point is there is still possibly scope for strict YEC to be abandonned in favour of open YEC-OEC and for the FBs to remain - if the Church polis wanted them to. The SDA Church would and will survive acknowledging evolution - I have faith in that and our mission to the whole world.
When I spoke about FB's needing reshaping or removal etc, I was not meaning that if Evolution were true that must be the case. I meant even in the absence of that debate. ie that from careful Bible study alone one can find reason to seriously challenge many FB's
My personal veiw is that the shape of an Adventism which recognizes the import of how this world and life has very likely come to be what it is (evolution) - will be very, very different. Your points above do not reflect this. They also do not reflect some of the significant Biblical weaknesses in our doctrinal lineup. We have trouble on two fronts!
(I sure hope that you are hearing what cb25 is clearly and candidly telling you.)
Your attempt to forge a middle ground when none exists is not unlike stepping into quicksand, my brother.
Your hedge-my-bet-just-in-case middle ground strategy/philosophy can only be played out for so long man.
No middle ground exists??? What makes you god that you can be so certain that your ground is the right ground?
The middle ground that some seek may in fact be the right ground. It is NOT a questoin of whether it appears the "right" ground from where you or I stand: It is a matter of whether the ground (position/belief) can stand up to rigorous question. Your current ground cannot - it's only ultimate defense is "I believe it is right". Yeah...I'm a good bloke too...Just ask me and I will assure you I am - cause I believe it!! That proves nothing.
I don't agree with Stephen Ferguson on some things, but beside that point - at least he is asking admiting questions can and need to be asked. Seems you do not.
My position is based on faith, as is yours. My faith is based on what I have read about what Scripture has declared about a supernatural, benevolent, self-existing, eternal, omniscient, and omnipotent Creator juxtaposed with how I have observed Him operate and intervene in my life and the lives of others over 58 years of life. Scripture informs me that He loves us all and that we are totally dependent on Him for life and everything pertaining thereto, and that He has made provision to save us out of this world; in which we have an adversary who roams about seeking to destroy whomever he can. If we trust the One who sustains us and has provided for us and has demonstrated His love and care for us, He will do the rest and guide us into a more complete knowledge of Him and His will; which is our good. I could go on, but suffice it to say that observation of the world and my life and leads to me to understand that Scripture is God’s chosen vehicle to explain what has transpired, is transpiring, and will transpire.
The faith community of which I am a member espouses my beliefs and I subscribe to practically all of what it outlines as its beliefs. At this point I am perhaps agnostic about that of which I am not totally convinced. http://www.atoday.org/article/287/blogs/foster-stephen/2009/to-be-sure-or-not-to-be-is-that-the-question
Your position is based on what you have observed and discovered about what other men have observed, discovered and have speculated concerning how we got here and what has transpired over an undeterminable number of years. Not so different, after all, right?
However you are a Christian who does not necessarily believe that Christ existed or that God intervenes in the affairs of creation/nature; or of humanity for that matter. Your position can stand the scrutiny of rigorous questioning no more than mine; and logically, much less, quiet as it’s kept.
You are right, I am not God. That is the whole point, my friend. We did not make God in our image. God made us in His image.
My position which is based on what I observed, plus what others have observed and studied is not a "faith" position like yours. No. Based on what I observe, I put to you a falsifiable, demonstrable prediction that the sun will get up tomorrow as it did yesterday. I have faith it will do so based on demonstrable, repeatable observable reality.
Your position is indeed based on what you have read, studied and understand about what others have written. It is also based on your subjective experience. Give me one falsifiable, demonstrable, observable prediction/action/outcome which can move this belief from absolute subjective faith. Then I will agree with you that yours and mine are based on faith in the same way. Clearly, they are not.
My faith that God exists may not withstand scrutiny; true. However, my key position that this earth and life upon it are extremely old and have undergone a process of change will withstand intense scrutiny. My position that God does not intervene (at least in frequent or observable, non subjective ways) will also withstand scrutiny. Apart from personal experience or testimony of others please show me documented instances of God's intervention in this generation? We both know the answer.
You should have a read of the last comment or two at the end of Don Watson's blog. It raises serious questions, and the silence on that thread in defence of God is as deafening as is God's own silence. Funny that.
IF evolution were true, what would that mean for the SDA faith? IF evolution were true, COULD the FBs survive in essence (albeit with some changes, perhaps to make them more open)? This is not the same question as SHOULD the FBs be changed if evolution were true.
There is a slight but important distinction and I think some comments have been focused on the 'should' rather than the 'could'.
On the other hand, what’s so bad about schism? How can two segments that are in such fundamental disagreement function together as one?
I mean, since we’re just asking questions here, I thought I’d ask that one.
We regularly repeat Exodus 20:8-11 in church on Sabbath morning. Why risk making other SDAs uncomfortable on a regular basis? Why should they willingly subject themselves to this, or Sabbath School lessons, or sermons that occasionally, if not regularly, reference six days?
When Christians don’t agree with each other on fundamental Scriptural interpretation it isn’t absolutely imperative that they continue to assemble together.
When they fundamentally disagree on basic doctrinal issues, they generally worship—and are more at ease—with others of like faith.
Furthermore, as people have been trying to say for quite a while, even if the Church opened up to a more YEC and OEC view, no one is asking YECs to give up their creatonist beliefs - just for OECs not to be persecuted. Moreover, I would think that OEC would no have problem with Ex 20:8-11 being quoted, and as Jack and others have tried to show, it is possible to still believe 100% the seventh-day Sabbath, to keep it just as religiously as you do, and accept OEC.
Finally, in practice I doubt YEC and OEC Adventists would be together hearing the same sermons or sharing the same Sabbath School lessons in the same buildings anyway - they would most likely be in two separate congregations - as they largely are already. It is no more a problem than current Church demographics, where liberal SDA Church congregations rarely mention, discuss or quote Ellen White or 1844, or sing contemporary music instead of hymns. People ultimately end up in a congregation that they fell comfortable with, and I can't imagine why YEC-OEC would not simply reflect that.
As Kevin rightly says below, "We don't have to all worship in the same building or use the same hymn book, but acknowledging we are all on the same team with the same manager would be a good place to be."
Not that I could imagine repeating Ex 20:8-11 would be a problem even in a congregation that embraced OEC. No one is denying the truth of those passages of the Bible; rather, they are just challenging your interpretation of them. I suspect a OEC majority congregation would probably quote and know more about the exegesis of that passage and Gen 1-3 that the average regular pew-warming cultural Adventist.
If I understand you correctly, you actually make my point. You are saying that there is already a de facto schism for purposes of worship assembly.
I am merely suggesting that formalizing this de facto schism would not be disastrous.
Experience has shown that those who don’t agree about the beginning of the The Book are likely not to be in agreement about the end of The Book. (Again it’s the interpretation thing, you know.)
So, your concern about the dilution of resources for preaching the Third Angel’s message isn’t a compelling one from my perspective.
Moreover, I note the early Church was in fact a de facto schism between the Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians. They differed quite a lot on belief and practices - arguably much more different from differences today. Yet the early Church leadership placed lots of emphasis on maintaining unity between these two groups.
Just out of interest, how would such a schism be formalized anyway? For example, from my own personal experience, there are many 'progressive' Adventists who in practice reject or severly downplay our FBs on Ellen White, marriage (i.e. they turn a blind eye to divorce) or 1844, yet are strongly YEC.
Thus, how would schism work - like any divorce, who gets the property, institutions and intellectual property? No doubt you will suggest that OEC should just walk away with nothing. But it is the YEC who want to change the current FB#6, so maybe you should walk away with nothing? As most of the previous efforts and resources originated in North America, which are more likely to be progressive and Evangelical, maybe the unions should split off from the GC?
You see, it is not an easy thing you suggest and not one I would like to see - hence my 'cop-out' attempt to find a 'middle ground' to maintain Church unity. Yes, I understand you don't like that approach and will continue to vilify me for it.
That is why our pioneers were very anti-creedal, because they feared any attempt to define 'orthodoxy', which is what the Papacy and Protestant Churches did when they stopped growing in the Reformation process. I submit that whilst I am by faith YEC, I also don't pretend to know everything, and would have any attempt to define YEC as Adventist 'orthodoxy', as President Wilson wants to do. That would not be in the spirit of our pioneers.
However you make an enlightening point about who would be entitled to the spoils.
Suffice it to say that the de facto schism is apparently very much underway on a large scale, and perhaps even (at least partially) on a cultural basis.
We might just be staying together because the liberal minority does not want to give up the house in the divorce. I frankly had never previously considered this. You are therefore perhaps trying to be a marriage counselor; if not a mediator.
Personally, I think we have irreconcilable differences. (I also think that you are engaging in self-serving historical revisionism concerning our pioneers.)
The owner gets the spoils -which usually means a Union or Division body set up specifically as a body to hold property. So it would probably depend on which way that governing body went, which is not a foregone conclusion.
I suspect that our pioneers would do as they usually did - take sides and argue :)
As Solomon wisely noted, there is nothing new under the sun. These types of issues have been dividing Christianity since the first circumcision debate, or the division of Israel into two kingdoms centuries before it. When our leaders follow the example of the Apostles in Acts 15, maintaining unity but allowing a degree of diversity (and disallowing both extremes), then the Church survived as unified whole. When they didn't the body of Christ shattered apart.
As writers such as Lennox notes in his excellent book (as referenced in Jack's original article - I recommend reading it), Christianity has already undergone a very similar debate with Copernicus and Galileo. Before that, Tertullian and Clement (I suggest you Wikipedia it) underwent a similar battle over the place of Greek philosophy.
I'll leave it to you whether you think President Wilson, backed by his SevyTaliban supports are as wise the Apostles in Acts 15 in their current jihadist 'all or nothing' approach. If I am naive by trying to think of ways we could possibly maintain Church unity and the essential fabrick of the Adventist theological framework, then I am happy to wear that accusation with pride.
BTW Fritz Guy, not Guy Fritz, was the main author of the FBs. If you haven't read his book "Thinking Theologically", you should. It is one of the best books we have produced.
"While this may come as a surprise to some, this wording was carefully crafted, in 1980, by the “Committee of Twelve”, specifically by Dr. Lawrence Geraty, in an effort to be more “inclusive” of those in the church who favor the Darwinian notion that life has existed and evolved on this planet over the course of hundreds of millions of years. According to Dr. Fritz Guy, this “more Biblical” wording allows for the interpretation that the “days” of creation may be figuratively understood and may be viewed as representing vast periods of time." (emphasis added)
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/changing-the-wording-of-adventist-fundamental-belief-6-on-creation/
As I said, it appears the whole purpose by the current wording in FB#6 was to adopt the 'middle approach'. People might disagree with that approach and applaud President Wilson's new tough stance, but I think it is foolish and dangerous. It only increases the chances of schism, not reduces it.
The plurality that wish to see in adventism has no precendence in the bible or the SOP. The bible admonishes us not waver between two opinions. If the Disciples advocated for "theological diversity" and "moral ambiguity" there would be churches that made circumcision mandatory and others that did not. According to your estimation of Ted wilson stance against Theistic evolution maybe John was as you said "foolish and dangerous" in his stance against the gnostics
Your opinions do not stand against the test of scripture or are consistent within themselves for them to be incorporated into adventism. You are invariably the "gnostic" of our time after all you are in the "know" of how creation happened. I will oppose your errors the same way John opposed the Gnostics and hope you change your viewpoint.
The middle ground you wish for might prove very elusive after all is the truth always between two opposing view points? Is there a middle ground between truth and error? What was the middle ground in Noah's time? Or in Sodom and Gommorah? What was the middle ground in Jeremiah's time? He who believes in everything believes in nothing
I thought Paul's conclusion was that 'circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing'. Perhaps how long creation took is also in that category. I cannot see how creation itself could be, as it seems fairly obvious that if God did not create, then the rest does not matter. I believe personally that Moses intended that we understand the days of Genesis 1 as normal 24 hour days. I don't feel qualified to decide whether he was correct or not in doing so. I do not feel the need to exclude those who disagree, as long as they believe God did create. My personal feeling is that an omnipotent, omniscient God could find a better way to create than evolution.
My main concern in this is not to push evolution (which I do not want to believe in as a theory of origins), but to argue that we should not confuse what we believe Genesis 1 means with what Genesis 1 actually says, and that we all act as Christians while discussing the issue. Calling each other names does nothing to establish our credibility as Christians, Adventists, or rational people. And, no, I don't see any contradiction between those three categories.
I think you have made a false analogy with the Noah and Sodom situations. You are probably correct that in those stories there were choices between two outcomes.
Doctrine or indeed truth is vastly different. You cannot assume that there is a choice only between two options. eg each end of a line. There may be a vast number of shapes the "truth" could take along that continuum or in an array around it - or even beyond its known limits. To assert that there can be no "middle" ground is to ignore this fact and to assume one knows which end of the continuum contains truth.
False analogy = potential false conclusion.
'The plurality that wish to see in adventism has no precendence in the bible or the SOP. The bible admonishes us not waver between two opinions.'
Here are a few things I would like Tapiwa to clarify for me then, as he appears to suggest the Church can never have a plurarity of views:
- Christ's nature as the 2nd Adam - before or after the fall? (GC has no official stance)
- Original sin or no original sin? (Again, I believe the GC has no official stance)
- Division of the Law - a. moral and ceremonial b. moral, ceremonial, civil. c. moral, ceremonial, civil and natural (i.e. health and other 'scientific laws')? (My understanding is that Adventist scholars invoke all three models).
- Ellen White - a. verbal inspiration and infallible b. edifying and fallible c. devoltional and very fallible d. false prophet? (My understanding is there a wide diversity on how to apply Ellen White - see the 1919 Bible Conference).
- Dress Reform - a. strictly necessary (i.e. the exact clothes Ellen White prescribed). b. Applies by principle (i.e. transplant thoses principles into our culture) c. Not applicable to modern age?
- Military service - a. strictly pacifist b. non-combatancy c. full service (including in combat roles) (There has been widespread disparity re this)?
- Abortion - a. allowed b. allowed only in exceptional cases (such as to save the mother's life) c. never allowed?
- Vegetarianism - a. veganism b. lacto-vegetarianism c. 'clean' meats only?
- Music - a. hymns only b. some contemporary instruments c. full contemporary music?
I could go on and on. You see Tapiwa, there are indeed a whole range of issues where there are a pluarity of views and more within Adventism - always has been! The point is we need to try and work out the parameters of what is 'essential' to our belief system, which we demand unity, and what is 'non-essential' that allows for diversity.
The current version of FB#6 was deliberately written in 1980 to allow for diversity on the issue of length of 'days' in Genesis. You might argue that that point is no longer valid, and that FB#6 needs to be changed - I respectfully disagree. But that is what we are really talking about, and it is a fallacy to think there won't be a diversity of views on a whole range of issues dear to people within the SDA Church.
1. Y2K view: Those who admit the current scientific consensus suggests the earth is over 6 billion years old, but that given science is fallible, we should put our trust in scripture instead - i.e. don't trust science when it conflicts with scripture. My understanding several members of the GRI take this position, and has been mentioned in depth in Spectrum Magazine. Similar to the Y2K craze, where all the world's experts said the computers would all crash on 1 Jan 2000, which is indeed what the scientific evidence showed, but where it all turned out to be a real hoax.
2. Dinosaur-Human Theme Park View: Those who argue science is very much a legitimate form of lesser divine revelation, but dispute the whole premise that science currently doesn't support creationism. Thus, they argue that science does support a YEC, but that due to political, finance and other reasons (i.e. academic peer pressure or a conspiracy etc.) the majority of scientists simply ignore all the evidence for YEC. Sites such as Educate Truth seem to advocate this model.
I think there really is a very different debate depending on which of these two models one chooses. Even on sites such as Educate Truth one notices YEC arguing with each other re this.
And to these two models I would add a third (which I would say I am):
3. Precautionary Principle YEC Agnostics: I don't know if it is all an elaborate hoax like Y2K or perhaps Global Warming. On the actual issue of YEC vs OEC, I am honest enough to admit that as I am not a scientist or a professional theologian, I am not really in a position to decide. However, following the 'precautionary principle', I am not about to castigate those who have a different view from me, and it just seems silly to try and enforce a rigid 'orthodoxy' when the evidence is still yet to be determined.
Some of these individuals may also agree that politics, finance, and peer pressure may contribute to some scientific ignorance regarding creationism.
Some of these same people may actually be as honest as you may be.
No right or wrong answers or anything, I was just interested in how different YECs see the world and what underlies their views.
Much appreciated for answering.
YEC = God created the earth and life here about 6,000 years ago.
Both state that God created life here about 6,000 years ago (often extended to about 10,000 years ago), but differ on whether the earth and/or the solar system was here before then. You are definitely in the OEC/YLC camp from what you have said. You are only YEC if you insist that the earth itself was part of the 6 day creation.
Despite Tapiwa's protestations, we commonly do have a plurity of views. Infact, even within the 'Creationist camp', there are a range of different reasons why people believe the things they do.
As I noted previoulsy, Creationist writers from Spectrum (backing leading scientists at GRI) had a very public spat with Creationist at Educate Truth (who is often critical of GRI) on the best approach to formulate the belief on Creationist. In short, Spectrum (and GRI) were saying we should believe in YEC despite science; Educate Truty was saying we should accept YEC because of science. The fact you have indentifed different permutations (as did I with a 'third view') only serves to illustrate that point about diversity.
That comes full circle to Jack's original proof in the article. It is possible to share basically the exact same beliefs and practices, such as the seventh-day Sabbath, even if we have different reasoning for doing so. The Bible itself recognises that with the different reasoning in Deut compared with Exodus.
People like Goldstein and Pres Wilson cannot go around telling people that evolution will be the death of the seventh-day Sabbath when Adventists who do believe in evolution say they are happy with keeping the seventh-day Sabbath. Those people are living proof that such scare mungering is false. Again, I am not promoting evolution, just trying to stop the attacks on those who do believe.
I believe there was arguing in the apostolic church but to insinuate that there was plurality in that time is a stretch. Does not Paul say that if anyone taught different from what he had tuaght that person was accursed! Oh yeah I forgot reinterpreting scripture is your thing! I respect your right to believe in theistic evolution but to advocate that two antithetical, diametrically opposed views can exist in the church is a fallacy.
Stephen Ferguson
I agree that it seems there are a plurality of views in the Church but the Question we should ask is this Gos's ideal?
Let me try to clarify some of the issues you raised
1. Christ's nature - I believe it was post lapsarian this only became an issue in the late 1950s after the QOD fiasco where some well meaning individuals tried to align us to the evangelical world
2. original sin - same as #1
3. Ellen White - falliable the same way Paul or Peter or Isaiah was. The issue emanates from people trying to project their views on adventism which SOP rejects. the conclusion would be to "make of none effect the testimonies"
I admit that in the history of the church there have been different view points. However to suggest that each of these views were equally valid is misrepresentation. theological diversity and moral ambiguity sounds like arguments Lucifer might have used in heaven after all he did not want the angels to be victims of "rigid othordoxy"
Kind regards
Tapiwa Mushaninga
Both discussions on the nature of Christ and on original sin were in the SDA church before 1950. Your view was the majority view, but up until the 1930s, so was the anti-Trinitarian view, so, as I am sure you agree, which side has the majority means little. I don't agree with either historical side on the nature of Christ, and I don't believe in original sin. On Ellen White, the 1919 Bible Conference revealed divisions on that. They still exist. I agree with the churches official theroetical POV which is that she is not infallible, but disagree with our practice which is to treat her as if she were infallible.
Again for the avoidance of doubt, I am not advocating Seventh-day Adventists should adopt evolution. I am merely trying to stick up for brothers and sisters who do believe in evolution from attack, when people even at the highest level of the Church (such as Goldstein) suggest they should leave as heretics.
Ask most Adventists why they observe sabbath and you will get many answers:
many will quote any of numerous Bible verses from Genesis to Revelation, and that they believe it because the Bible "says it is so."
Other than that, there is little interest in defining creation or whether Christians are obligated as were Jews to observe the day, and what Paul wrote about not judging on days, or that Christ has replaced the Law. They accepted what they were taught and that's all that matters. Only a few, some represented here, are willing to discuss subjects such as this but they make no difference to the huge majority of Adventists world-wide.
Why argue that the Sabbath can still be kept even if Creation was longer than 6 days, when creation was but 6 days? Cannot the argument be used by skeptics to justify their unbelief, and if so, why encourage them in such false justification?
Remember, Jack, Jesus testified by the Holy Spirit through His prophet that the idea that the 6 days of creation weren't 6 days is one of the worst forms of infidelity. Thus I question the wisdom of holding up Hugh Ross when he is treaching infidelity. And your apparent assertion without evidence that the facts of science support long ages raises issues of credibility.
Jack, please comment on the following quote from 1SP 86: "But the infidel supposition that the events of the first week required seven vast, indefinite periods for their accomplishment, strikes directly at the foundation of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment." Do you believe this quote? If not, could you share just how many Adventist beliefs you have abandoned, since it is possible that Creation and the Spirit of Prophecy are not the only ones?
Oh sure, she has written other things that have been challenged on any number of topics; but only those foundational statements about the beginning and the end of the age—the literal seventh-day and advent message—are truly controversial. That’s no coincidence.
Secondly, the quote provided appears more concerned with Creation Week than the earth’s age.
Thirdly, although 1844, IJ, and the Sanctuary are famously disputed topics; there is nothing that we can do about them no matter on whatever side of these issues we are; or no matter which side is right and which side is wrong.
In other words, ultimately nothing changes if Desmond Ford is either right or wrong. No one believes that we save ourselves or that we are the final judge. We have to depend on and trust God no matter what’s true about judgment. It has been a diversion all along.
How we got here, the Sabbath truth, and what will happen at the end of the age are the real controversies. These are distinctive doctrines of Seventh-day Adventism.
I know that the First Angel’s message has to do with the hour of his judgment, etc.; and it’s all intertwined. But the seventh day and advent doctrines are the true linchpins to the movement/message. The Third Angel’s message is most relevant.
Thus, before you can successfully challenge 1SP 86, you must first provide a compelling reason why that quote does not constitute Jesus' testimony. Or else you need to explain why Peter was wrong in 1 Pet. 1:10, 11, when he explained how Jesus testified by His Spirit through the prophets. Or, as a third option, you need to explain why you think that Jesus was fallible when He testified what He did in 1SP 86.
- Certain races are the amalgamation of man and beast (the don't).
- White people and black people should not marry (they should be able to).
- Ellen White got wrong the number of moons of Jupiter and Saturn (wrong).
- Cosmetics can kill you (wrong).
- Masturbation can cause cancer (wrong).
- England would enter the US Civil War (wrong prediction).
- Jerusalem would never be rebuilt (wrong prediction).
- Some would be alive in 1865 to see the 2nd Coming (wrong prediction).
I have no problems with these, because I understand the role and limits of a prophet. If you see an earlier post from me, Ellen White is no more a false prophet if we judge her according to the biblical criteria. The problem is you are in danger of judging her something more than the biblical criteria.
The Ellen White estate deals with all of these problems quite well. Perhaps I should leave you with what they say about her statements concerning science, given it would be immensely applicable to our topic here:
Attention has been called to statements that seem to show that Ellen White made grievous errors regarding scientific issues. Prophets are not called to update encyclopedias or dictionaries. Nor are prophets (or anyone else) to be made "an offender by a word" (Isa. 29:21). If prophets are to be held to the highest standards of scientific accuracy (every few years these "standards" change, even for the experts), we would have cause to reject Isaiah for referring to "the four corners of the earth" (Isa. 11:12) and John for writing that he saw "four angels standing at the four corners of the earth" (Rev. 7:1).
That's what her own Estate says!
God gave Ellen White visions - I don't doubt that. But how she communicated those visions were her own flawed and fallible human words - just like every prophet before her. Moreover, as she wrote literally millions and millions of words, sometimes those ideas were her own - not dictated from God. Sometimes they were from God but designed to addressed a specific cultural and factual situation of that time.
I know it is a hard concept for many to graps, but Kevin has already noted this is largely the Church's own official view on the subject. If you want to research it further, I strongly suggest you just wikipedia the 1919 Bible Conference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1919_Bible_Conference
It might not also be a bad idea to provide where and what her estate has commented about these same claims.
http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/faq-unus.html#unusual
Most anti-White and anti-Adventist sites quote the direct statements - very easy to find. Happy to directly quote any of them if you specifically request.
"Not only do we need to avoid using Ellen White to "prove" the details of history, but the same caution must be expressed in the realm of the details of science. In saying this I do not mean to imply that there is not a great deal of accuracy in the scientific inferences of Ellen White's writings--and the Bible's, for that matter--but that we must not seek to prove this and that scientific detail from them.
Let me illustrate. Some claim that John Calvin, the great sixteenth-century Reformer, resisted Copernicus's discovery that the earth rotated around the sun by quoting Psalm 93:1: "The world also is stablished; that it cannot be moved." In a similar vein, many have pointed out that the Bible talks about the four corners of the earth and the fact that the sun "comes up" and "goes down." In such cases, the Bible is merely making incidental remarks rather than setting forth scientific doctrine.
Remember that the Bible and Ellen White's writings are not intended to be divine encyclopedias for things scientific and historical. Rather they are to reveal our human hopelessness and then point us to the solution in salvation through Jesus. In the process, God's revelation provides a framework in which we can understand the bits and pieces of historical and scientific knowledge gained through other lines of study."
http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/herm-pri.html
- Ellen White (and any other biblical prophet) is not there to 'prove' details of science and history.
- Ellen White (and any other biblical prophet) are not scientists, encyclopedias or dictionaries - so stop treating her like one.
- Ellen White (and any other biblical prophet) are often making a theological point - not a scientific one.
- At best, Ellen White (and other biblical prophets) can provide 'bits and pieces of historical and scientific knowledge gained through other lines of study', which means she can supplement science - but never replace it.
If only we could adopt a bit of that here. Furthermore, I seriously hope President Wilson ends up practicing what he preaches, rather than what appeared to be a very partisan platform for his presidency. Who knows, maybe President Wilson has realised that unity and consensus is important after all, and if he has, I may just become of fan of his yet! Time and his fruits will tell.
-
Certain races are the amalgamation of man and beast (certain races of man are not and cannot be by an amalgamation of man and beast – in fact, this statement is very anti-Creationist, which stress kinds or species were created fixed and cannot change):
Spiritual Gifts, vol. 3, p. 64. "Every species of animal which God had created were preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men" (page 75).-
White people and black people should not marry (they should be able to):
Manuscript 7, 1896 Selected Messages Book 2, page 343, paragraph 2. "But there is an objection to the marriage of the white race with the black. All should consider that they have no right to entail upon their offspring that which will place them at a disadvantage; they have no right to give them as a birthright a condition which would subject them to a life of humiliation. The children of these mixed marriages have a feeling of bitterness toward the parents who have given them this lifelong inheritance. For this reason, if there were no other, there should be no intermarriage between the white and the colored race."-
Ellen White said stars shine be reflecting the light of the sun (wrong, stars are other suns who shine via their own nuclear fussion):
Education, p. 14 (same statement, The Desire of Ages, p. 465). "As the moon and the stars of our solar system shine by the reflected light of the sun."-
Ellen White got wrong the number of moons of Jupiter and Saturn (wrong):
Early Writings, p. 40. This vision was first described in the Broadside, To those who are receiving the seal of the living God, first published Jan. 31, 1849. A "world which had seven moons," and that the planets visited were Jupiter and Saturn.-
Cosmetics can kill you (wrong):
The Health Reformer, October 1871. "Many are ignorantly injuring their health and endangering their life by using cosmetics. They are robbing the cheeks of the glow of health, and then to supply the deficiency use cosmetics. When they become heated in the dance the poison is absorbed by the pores of the skin, and is thrown into the blood. Many lives have been sacrificed by this means alone."-
Masturbation [self-abuse as it use to be called] can cause cancer (wrong, medical practitioners now universally consider masturbation as perfectly normal):
Appeal to Mothers, 1864, p. 25, 27."He had practiced self-abuse until he was a mere wreck of humanity. This vice was shown me as an abomination in the sight of God. ... The results of self-abuse in them is seen in various diseases, such as catarrh, dropsy, headache, loss of memory and sight, great weakness in the back and loins, affections of the spine, the head often decays inwardly. Cancerous humor, which would lay dormant in the system their life-time, is inflamed, and commences its eating, destructive work. The mind is often utterly ruined, and insanity takes place."[There are at least 3 or 4 other similar anti-masturbation statements.]
-
England would enter the US Civil War (wrong prediction):
Testimonies for the Church, vol. 1, p. 259. "England is studying whether it is best to take advantage of the present weak condition of our nation, and venture to make war upon her. She is weighing the matter, and trying to sound other nations. She fears, if she should commence war abroad, that she would be weak at home, and that other nations would take advantage of her weakness. Other nations are making quiet yet active preparations for war, and are hoping that England will make war with our nation, for then they would improve the opportunity to be revenged on her for the advantage she has taken of them in the past, and the injustice done them. A portion of the Queen's subjects are waiting a favorable opportunity to break their yoke; but if England thinks it will pay, she will not hesitate a moment to improve her opportunities to exercise her power, and humble our nation. When England does declare war, all nations will have an interest of their own to serve, and there will be general war, general confusion."-
Jerusalem would never be rebuilt (wrong prediction).
Ellen G. White wrote in 1851 that "old Jerusalem never would be built up."Early Writings, p. 75. This sentence appears in the chapter, "The Gathering Time," which combined two visions and some additional lines. The first vision, Sept. 23, 1850, dealt with the "gathering time" of "Israel," the dates on the Millerite 1843 chart, the "daily," timesetting, and the error of going to Old Jerusalem. The second vision, June 21, 1851, focused on the third angel's message, time-setting, and Old Jerusalem's not being built up.
-
Some would be alive in 1865 to see the 2nd Coming (wrong prediction).
Concerning a conference in 1856 Ellen White declared: "I was shown the company present at the conference. Said the angel, 'Some food for worms, some subjects of the seven last plagues, some will be alive and remain upon the earth to be translated at the coming of Jesus.' "I am not, or was not, impugning your integrity by asking you to provide the direct quotes; but felt (and feel) that if you are going to characterize them as wrong or mistaken, that you should, in fairness, provide the quotes in question and not just characterizations.
I also confess to not realizing that the White Estate had these in such a readily accessible format, as I presumed that I would have to research them. In other words, I didn’t bother to look at the site before just now.
Now, do you have problems with the Estate’s contextual explanation, or characterization, of these statements? Because, needless to say, I don’t; and yes, I had heard of a few of these— and their explanations—previously.
For what it’s worth, you may access a summarization of my take on EGW in a previous (2009) atoday.org blog (http://www.atoday.org/article/287/blogs/foster-stephen/2009/to-be-sure-or-not-to-be-is-that-the-question.
(Of course, if you’re like me, you may not feel like accessing another link.:)
I read your article and I would say I broadly agree with your sentiments. I would say with certainly that I believe all 28 FBs but I do wonder if I sometimes have a slightly rationale for arriving at that theological conclusion (which is kind of Jack’s point).
Re the E White Estate’s contextual explanations, I do broadly agree – but only broadly. For some issues, such as the masturbation (self abuse) comments, I feel the Estate is perhaps trying a little too hard to justify her statements. I think it would be better if they just came clean and made the point that sometimes biblical prophets make personal statements, which are not visions of divine revelation, and like any of us those personal opinions can be wrong and products of our time. Nathan telling David he could build the Temple, Peter being a hypocrite when he ate with Gentiles vs Jews, or Paul wrongly telling virgins not to marry because Jesus was about to return are three examples off the top of my head that come to mind.
I think the other examples are quite illustrative. The statement about ‘stars reflecting the sun’ shows Mrs White wasn’t meaning to be scientific but just use a turn of phrase. Jupiter’s moons are an example of ‘present truth’, where she was technically incorrect (as we now know from science), but where she told Joseph Bates what he needed to hear at the time (similar to the Oracle character in the movie the Matrix telling Neo he was not the One). Finally, the example re England entering the civil war is a good example of a prophecy as a conditional warning, of the same type of Jonah (where Jonah’s prediction did not technically come true because Ninnevah was not destroyed).
Stephen I actually think we probably view Ellen White much the same way, and I did note you admitted she was not infallible. My question for you, is do you believe in following the Estate’s own guidance, and as seen in the practical examples mentioned, that:
“Not only do we need to avoid using Ellen White to "prove" the details of history, but the same caution must be expressed in the realm of the details of science.”
On that basis, do you agree we need to be cautious of reading too much into Mrs White’s statement about the age of the earth? For example, was she just sharing her personal opinion or perhaps even telling the Church what it needed to hear at the time (i.e. especially as Social Darwinism was on the rise at the time as a consequence of evolution). If anything, the example of Ellen White shows that we must be cautious of reading too much into ‘scientific’ statements of any prophet, Ellen White or Moses included.
While we may agree on that, where we differ is that I believe that she will eventually be proved to be right on things that now appear wrong. (I am here thinking specifically of masturbation.)
In my opinion, her counsels on diet and health have proven to be prescient. So in answering your question regarding “the realm of the details of science,” I would candidly suggest caveats in numerous areas.
My beliefs about creation are based entirely on what the Bible has to say. As you know, the same can be said about the overwhelming majority of creationists.
I do agree the evolution-creation debate should be limited to the Bible. People try to hang a whole lot off a very few statements from Mrs White, and again, I am not sure if that is the right approach, given the examples cited and the cautions issued by her own Estate.
"The statement about ‘stars reflecting the sun’ shows Mrs White wasn’t meaning to be scientific but just use a turn of phrase."
And yet her statement is totally scientific, is it not? "As the moon and the stars of the solar system shine by the reflected light of the sun ..." (DA 465; Ed 13; GW15 50). It clearly says "the stars of the solar system." Venus, Mars, Mercury, etc. all shine by the reflected light of the sun, and no scientist has ever been able to prove something different.
Though my beliefs are similar to yours, I am wondering which is more important--to have a close relationship with God and believe Jesus is who He says he is; or believe in a literal creation story? Is it possible to have the first without the other? How does literalism influence our salvation? Don't you think the Genesis writers had a different worldview? Is it possible to fit their terminology/description into what we actually know about the universe now? (I don't think so.)
It is most certainly “more important…to have a close relationship with God and believe Jesus is who He says He is than it is to believe in a literal creation story;” without any doubt.
Since I am not God and cannot read anyone’s mind nor judge them about this, I cannot answer whether it is possible to have a close relationship with God and believe Jesus is who He says He is if you do not believe in the literal creation scriptural account.
I can tell you that it doesn’t make any sense, from a logical perspective, to believe that Jesus was the pre-existent Creator of everything that exists, and that He was sent by God to save the world, and that He rose from the dead and returned to heaven, and that He will return with power and glory and resurrect those whom have died trusting Him, etc., and also believe that science informs us as to what He can do, has done, and will/won’t do.
I’m not sure I fully understand your last two questions. Would you please elaborate.
Creation and Suffering: For example, if evolution is true, then how do we reconcile that everything, including us, were created by billions of years of death and suffering? How do we acknowledge that 99.9% of different species have died just so we could get here?
Jesus, Adam, Fall and Atonement: If evolution were true, then was Adam a literal person? If he wasn't, then why did God have to come down in a literal person of Jesus and die a literal death for a metaphorical Adam who merely committed a metaphorical sin? It doesn't make much sense.
On that basis, I do think YEC offers an easier theological model, which is why I do lean by faith towards a literal 6-day reading of creation. That said, I don't think these problems are insurmountable, but one needs to be honest that evolution requires a deeper theology to address these issues. I also don't think those who are willing to discuss these theological problems should be castigated for discussing them.
My view is IF evolution is factually 'true' (and that is a big 'if'), God inspired the Genesis writers to write a very different, dliberately anti-Darwinian creation account, to stress a number of important theological points, distinct from the pagans. These include:
-
Finally, people might ask - why couldn't God have made a perfect world in 6 days, and why didn't He then? Perhaps the answer is - who said He didn't - it is called heaven! Remember, heaven was created first. The Bible also suggests heaven is a static place (with static, asexual beings habbitating it). In fact, heaven might even be a whole other universe quite different from our own (it sounds crazy but even athiest scientists such as Dawkins and Hawkings are talking about parallel universes seriously). Who says there wasn't a rebellion in the perfect, static rhelm of heaven first, which required our own gradual, painful universe to be created afterwards?
I am not saying I have all the answers. I am just pointing out that: i) there are indeed deep theological problems affecting God, Jesus and salvation is you reject YEC; but ii) there may still be ways to reconcile those problems theologically.Jack is delighted with the breadth of comments, and the ongoing conversations on these blogs. I am sorry that life’s complexity (I am a physician in active practice) does not allow me to answer all the good points in a timely manner, but I do read all of them, sooner or later. Happily other more active participants often answer issues better than I could have done. And as the issue is our shared Adventism, I do not consider personal any comments. Each question, each point is to give reason for the Advent hope within us, and in defense of the truth as it is in Jesus.
You are very patient to be still reading after 164 comments. In my month by month blogs many of these good questions deserve thoughtful in depth comment. So I will restrict myself here to one reminder:
-
A huge issue remains when Adventists demand only two choices, Bible or Evolution. (Please consider reading again “I’m not a Darwinian Adventist?”)
Although there are Theistic Evolutionists in our church and on this Adventist Today site, I personally reject Darwinian and Theistic Evolution as fully compatible with Adventism, although I am willing to talk with all Creationists who agree that Jesus is the Creator, about how He in fact created.There is a third or middle ground, called Intelligent Design, ID, in a religiously neutral form, or Old Earth Creationism, OEC, by avowed believers. This was not a widely discussed option in Ellen White’s day.I accept all her inspired comments as attacking godless evolution (life by guess and by golly, random mutations, natural selection as the mechanism of apparent design).
I believe all Adventists, all Christians, of any scientific opinion need to oppose atheism, naturalism.
My opinion is that the young earth creationists, YEC, will have difficulty doing that, because they reject the data the rest of us findquite reliable.They really have nothing to fight the Darwinian naturalist with, except opinion.
I think Theistic Evolutionists can resist atheism weakly. They give up so much there is only a thin, sort of hopeful wishing between them and the full Darwinian.
My suggestion is that Old Earth Creationists or the Intelligent Design crowd have the strongest tools to fight atheism, they accept the science and use it, finding strong evidence of God’s creative fingerprint in science.And find increasing evidence of irreconcilable weakness in all forms of Darwinian postulations.
Ellen White vigorously fought against atheism using the best tools she had available in her day, so we need to carry on her fight. I just am asking Adventism to be willing to use new and better tools to do this, even if we have to apologize for our past errors in thinking it had to be a short chronology for life on earth.
Can I clarify some?
You have clearly excluded Young Earth Creationism, but which beyond that are you proposing:
1. Old Earth Creation exhibiting ID but young life (ie all life within the 6k or so)?
2. Old Earth Creation exhibiting ID and old life but with a special creation event/week/garden of Eden etc?
3. Old earth, old life and no specific point of action in a "creation event/week" but God behind the scenes as exhibited in ID? (by "point of action" I mean a creation week or similar)
Or something else?
I think there is much evidence for a single mother of humanity, Eve, and I assume her Adam. I find no scientific or moral reason to question that God created life on earth in 6 stages or Creation Days where light sucessively banishes darkness, order banishes chaos, and simplicity is replaced by complexity. I have no settled chronology for those great events, and study with interest the various suggestions others have been making.
While it is clear that things change and evolve within parameters, I do not find evidence that random mutations can create information sufficient for life as it is, so I have no problem looking for a Creator with a progressive creation. Genesis 1 does teach a progressive creation. But I don't think Genesis 1 defines the chrolology of creation, only the aim and outcome.
I read again your previous blog. I'll paste a few exerpts and then ellaborate on my puzzlement.
"...perhaps you might call me a “Created Life Changes and Adapts Adventist”,"
"...You might be closer to target if you accuse me of Intelligent Design, as an “ID-Adventist”. Although no agreed chronology is part of Intelligent Design thought, there is universal support that all life shows evidence of being created, designed, planned, and brought into being by Intelligence."
"...I can be comfortable with ambiguity on the chronology of Creation, but no ambiguity at all that life shows unmistakable hallmarks of an Intelligent Designer."
"...don’t tar me as a “Darwinian Adventist” instead of an Old Earth or Long Term Creationist.
Creationists of all kind stand against Godless evolution..."
OK. Here's my puzzle. (in addition to my former re the 3 categories):
You note that creationists of all kinds stand against "Godless evolution". You validate "inserting" God because of ID. Fair enough; let's accept that for the moment. Have you not in reality just put God back into the "Godless evolution" through the vehicle of ID? The way you describe life changing and developing, possibly over long periods of time seems to be only a difference of terminology. Are you not really just playing with words to avoid the word evolution?
Puting it more bluntly: How do you distinguish between Theistic evolution (which itself can recognize ID) and the kind of Creationism ID you seem to be describing which itself has no chronology, accepts change over time (a long time even) ?
I have asked a lot of questions, and past experience tells me that when I do this few to none will get addressed, but your time would be apprecaited.
Cheers
The strengths of modern science are in its dogged persuit of the details. THe weakness of modern science is its unwillingness to accept the philosophical consequences of letting back in an Intelligent Designer for very philosophical reasons, not very good scientific ones, and hiding or minimizing that fact.
Fact? that God created vs supposition? that evolution is a mechanism that can explain.... If you have enough evidence to assert the former is a fact and the latter is based on suppositions - you and I have nothing to gain by discussion I guess.
In other words, what does your reliable data ultimately tell you about what God did, and said; or what He did not do, or what He didn’t say?
Atheists have a more intellectually coherent opinion than theistic evolutionists who are Christians, or Christians who are evolutionists. Once you concede that God exists and is revealed in scripture; then supernatural intervention is in play. Once supernatural intervention is in play, then any evidence that it took place or didn't take place is impossible to produce.
Soon there will be at least ten different "camps" each with their particuar interpretation of origins. Does it really make a difference? If it doesn't change or affect our daily lives why is it of such tremendous importance to make a decision on origins? Will our decisions change us for the better? Shouldn't all such issues be subject to change if and when discoveries are made which are impossible to ignore?
The term "Darwinism" is thrown about as having an onus only slightly less than a devil worshiper. Yet no one today can ignore the profound results of both Wallace and Darwin and the affects on the entire world of biological science.
What is the alternative that should be taught in SDA universities about origins?
Is it not of primary importance for a well rounded education today?
By the conversations here it appears that there is an assortment of ideas, none of which could likely meet qualifications for teaching, but only private opinions.
Can "supernaturalism" be taught? What is the criteria? Textbooks? How does one explain "supernatural" events in an analytical manner which is essential for instruction?
Is any position based on faith a proper subject for a college curriculum? An example: Adventists accept the seventh day as a sabbath and a day of rest. But there are many and various reasons for doing so and currently, there are no stipulations on exactly how and why it should be held sacred. Evidently, there are some beliefs, perhaps many, that should not go beyond a simple statement and leave the why and how to each individual. Isn't that the meaning of freedom of conscience?
In truth, everything we know is theory; but evidence is not equally found in all theories. Where is the evidence for the literal Gensis story?
Faith, as described in Hebrews, is based on unseen evidence, so it is not simply my view of faith but established biblically. We use faith on a daily basis, but it is adopted when there has been years of experience justifying such faith. We have faith that our monies will be protected in banks; that our cars will run if proplerly maintained, etc.
But faith, as used in religion (isn't that how we are using it in this topic?) cannot be substantiated to the same extent and satisfaction as are the biological evidence. Evolution is all about us and it is demonstrated regularly. It is used in Christian circles as a catch-all phrase meaning anything that seems to conflict with the first chapter of Genesis.
Christians have accepted that story while other cultures have other sacred stories and all claim supernatural origins. We only believe that ours make sense and are the only "correct" ones based on long familiarity--usually long before we read we have been indoctrinated into accepting these stories. They must be accepted on faith as no one saw or recorded that week and just as the Babylonian creation story, they extend back into antiquity with no trace of the beginning.
This is why many biologists can express belief in God, but not necessarily belief in all the stories told in the Bible: God did not write the Bible, so that is not rejecting God but rejecting humans's claims of God.
"We should teach evolution, but teach it completely!!! Students must understand the many many difficulties with the theory and not given this cult version where it must always be show true and right!"
Science is always subject to change; never static. Creationism cannot change, it is always the same as when the Genesis story was written. How many subjects can be taught that are no different that thousands of years ago other than broad principles?
Then, for God's sake, let's find better ways to explain why we have faith that He IS!
Perhaps it is just easier to keep flogging evolutionary theory than to reexamine ways to defend a faith in God.
As early Christian writer Clement said in his work Stromata, "philosophy [i.e. science] is the study of wisdom, and wisdom is the knowledge of things divine and human; and their causes".
Without science, you wouldn't be reading these words on your computer. Adventists also wouldn't be running their prophecy seminars or Digging up the Past sessions either, which rely heavily upon the human social sciences of history and archaeology. They also would struggle with their medical missionaries, which although relying on Ellen White's counsel, also strongly and heavily rely on scientific findings.
However, and this is the big BUT, Clement then went on to say that philsophy must be the "handmaiden to theology" (ancilla theologiae). He understood science's proper place as a lesser light to scripture.
We therefore need to avoid all this extremist talk as if it has to be a question of either for science or against it.
Stephen Ferguson,
"He (Clement) understood science's proper place as a lesser light to scripture."
Really? How would you demonstrate that "proper place" a posteriori? I'd love to see it!
what 'that' are you refering to - Clement's understanding of the proposition or the proposition itself? Are you asking:
i) How can I demonstrate, through experience or empircal evidence (which correct me is the meaning of a posterion) Clement understood philosophy as being subordinate to scripture, which Clement understood through his maxim "handmaiden to theology" (ancilla theologiae)? I.e. are you asking me how I come to understand Clement's position, where the 'evidence' is from reading Stromata, which I have read?
-OR-
ii) How can I demonstrate scripture, through my own experience or emprical evidence, should be subordinate to scripture? I.e. are you asking me how I can prove Clement's assertion, which is a different question?
What is about proving Clement said a thing; the other about proving what Clement said was correct.
We all might think we are very clever and intellectual, but the truth is, this debate is very, very old - going back to the dawn of Christianity.
Ancient philosophy was said to have four sub-fields, ‘logic, natural philosophy (what is now called science), ethics and metaphysics (‘first philosophy’), see John Bowden, ed. Encyclopaedia of Christianity (Oxford University Press, 2005), 925. Thus, metaphysics, being the ‘first philosophy’, is arguably the sub-field of philosophy that might now be considered ‘theology’; natural philosophy might arguably be considered that area of philosophy now known as ‘science’ – both are sub-sets of what the ancients considered in its widest sense ‘philosophy’.
In is interesting to note that in the early Church, Christians ‘did not make contributions to logic or in natural philosophy…their chief concern were with issues such as the nature and knowability of God’, see John Bowden, ed. Encyclopaedia of Christianity (Oxford University Press, 2005): 926. As the early Church reconciled its views to sub-fields of philosophy such as metaphysics and ethics, it as if millennia later theology is being finally forced to confront the remaining sub-fields philosophy relating to logic and natural philosophy.
Within this public discourse, there does appear to be modern-day fideists, such as fundamentalist Christians at one extreme (and there are probably some here commenting on AT), and celebrity atheists, such as Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens, at the other end (with possibly some supporters on AT as well). Within contemporary mainstream Christianity itself, it appears that there are perhaps modern-day Tertullians, such as Karl Bath, and modern-day Clements, such as Wolfhart Pannenberg, Thomas F. Torrance and Alister E. McGrath.
On what reasoning?
etc.
Busy now, comment on other info later.
I find no compelling, logically demonstrable reason why the Bible should be placed in the position of prime authority in regards to science, logic, reason observation of the natural world etc.
As you yourself once asked also, on what basis the Bible and not the Koran, Book of Mormon or some other sacred writing? It is purely subjective that we (Clement - whom you quote as an authority about the authority) consider the Bible that to which all others are "handmaidens".
That said, I do choose to believe the Bible is the primary formative factor (the top lowercase truth) over and above science, tradition, reason, logic etc. No doubt someone like Stephen Foster would say the Bible is primary because we have proof from fulfilled prophecies, the health message etc, but that is all circular reasoning, because he is in effect using science (i.e. testable observation) to disprove science's place as primary factor.
At the end of the day, none of the formative factors give us the ultimate Truth. You might think from testable observation that you are sitting at a keyboard reading this post, and there may be truth to that, but in reality the Truth might be that you are hooked up to a giant computer and this is all a Matrix-like simulation. Only Jesus Christ can give the ulimate Truth as I believe by faith.
Yes, a certain amount of faith is required because the only thing you know for sure if that you exist, and even that some philosphers question.
Rather, it suggests that far from either the Bible or natural world being wrong, our interpretation of either or both is wrong. I think Stephen Foster and other YEC might even agree with that. However, they would simply say the problem is that our interpretation of the natural world, as understood by current theories of science, are wrong. Others might argue the opposite, that our interpretation of the Bible, as understood by a literalist view, are wrong.
No, I would not say that “the Bible is primary because we have proof from fulfilled prophecies, the health message etc.” (Wow…talk about the quintessential straw man argument!) I would say that the Bible is primary because it is that which testified of Him who is ultimately The Truth.
John 5:46, 47 answers this entire question.
I was actually making the point that as much as Chris might say YEC like yourself are making a circular argument, I was actually pointing out that you could equally come back and say he has a circular argument. If our interpretations of scripture and our interpretations of science contradict, then obviously one of those interpretations (or both) are wrong.
My question is, who is to say that one should take science over scripture, rather than scripture over science? I personally think scripture should take the primary and dominant role.
of our knowledge about Him. His life and deeds were never recorded elsewhere; even the two contemporary Jewish historians never saw or spoke with him and briefly mentioned of someone that was held in high esteem by the Jewish people.
Now, without the Bible, tell us how you are able to claim to believe in and accept Jesus.
Personal revelation is another way to know God (as Paul and Ellen White both discovered). Social sciences are another way, such as archaeology and history, which can tell us something about the historical Jesus, the time and culture in which he lived, and thus the context for his actions and statements. Experience is another way, which is manifested in 'charisma' from the Holy Spirit in spiritual gifts. Literary studies are another, giving us insight into the formation of the Gospels and other parts of the Bible. Philosophy is another, we questions to the deepest problems in the world, such as theodicy, can be discussed.
Finally, observation of the natural world (i.e. science proper) can be a source of knowledge, which helps us gain a better understanding of our creator (remembering Jesus is the Word by which the universe was spoken into existence). No one can study questions about what existed before time and space was created, comprehended the vast size of the universe, take note that the laws of physics uniquely allow life to exist in the universe, and that despite the huge odds planet earth is in the 'goldilocks zone' that allows life on earth to exist - without having a sense of awe.
So no, the Bible isn't the only source of discovering about Jesus Christ, the second person of the Godhead, the Word made flesh and ultimate source of Truth as ever revealed to mankind. But the Bible is the best source of knowledge about Jesus, which is why Christian theologians going back to the early Church agreed that all forms of knowledge about God must be subordinate, as 'handmaidens of philosophy'.
It seems to me that there is no problem with science being seen as tentative--even though some who do not understand what science is or does apparently believe that science is a body of established facts that are worshiped by scientists. It seems to me that nothing could be much further from the truth. Revision in according with evidence is a hall mark of the scientific process.
Whatever else The Bible may be, it is not a scientific document, and there is no reason at all to claim that it is or that it has greater validity in the scientific realm than actual empirical science.
The problem with science is it also is not Truth, but merely what human beings can objectively test and observe by empirical evidence. For example, science cannot tell us what existed before space, time and the laws of physics were created. When scientists start speculating about what may have existed beforehand, they really are no longer talking about science at all but moving into the fields of philosophy, metaphysics and theology.
Therefore, science can be helpful, and I include social sciences in that, but it needs to be put in its proper place.
For those 'progressives' who disagree, can you please explain what type of formative factor (source of knowledge) should be dominant?
But I agree with what you said here: "When scientists start speculating about what may have existed beforehand, they really are no longer talking about science at all but moving into the fields of philosophy, metaphysics and theology."
I also agree that science should be subordinate to the Bible. If we approach it from any other perspective we make science our god--which is what most evolutionists have done; although they don't realize it..
Scientists can angry when they claim religion is being taught in the classroom. The truth is though, sometimes scientists try to teach theology and metaphysics in theirs.
Kevin, I so agree with your response.
And Joe(welcome back!), Stephen, you well elucidated the point!
This very point...that claim our/my theology superior to yours/theirs, using ANY "proofs"
...is more of the pride thing, polishing stolen illicit apples.
Yes, they ARE red, nutritious, less filling, delicious... but, just like that apple, they result in broken relationships.
And so the WORD was sent to live with us, walk with us, and by his death re-establish our inheritance via reconnection of severed spiritual umbilicus.
People who speculate about things may be correct sometimes, but often are not. Whether they are scientists or not. Part of the problem is when tentative suggestions are thought to be assertions of ultimate truth. Much of science involves asking a question, gathering and presenting some objective empirical evidence, discussing the evidence in the context of other information and explanations, followed by some suggestions about what the evidence may mean--and why more questions arise, requiring acquisition of more evidence.
It seems to me that is quite a different process than reading and being inspired by scripture to believe the "good news" that we are not condemned, but are free. The role of scripture, it seems to me, is in the spiritual realm--an area in which science does not (or at least should not) claim to have any application or authority.
But when it comes to physics and chemistry and neurobiology, I don't think we get much sophisticated input from the Bible. I don't think I want a surgeon working on me whose only, or even, primary textbook is the Bible. I don't mind at all if s/he reads the Bible and gives it priority in spiritual matters, but I want care from a physician who knows what s/he is doing.
Physicians don't take an oath to uphold the Bible. They take the Hippocratic oath. Neither the Golden Rule nor the Hippocratic Oath come directly from the Bible. The Golden Rule is found in more than a dozen ancient cultures, predating the Bible and there is still nothing superior as a guide for living with others.
If one uses the Bible there must be a use of very selective "cherry picking" as there are too many indications that God ordered mass killings and sent earthquakes and plagues--all part of the culture of those who wrote it--the Chosen People.
Musing a little this morning, and examining the sanctuary.
It is, always has been, and according to what is written, always will be, about worship.
Where in the sanctuary IS the bible? Yes, we interpret the "table of shewbread" as alluding to scripture...
but, wasn't "the WORD" the Creator Jesus, and by "His WORD" things happened, long before these words were scribed to scrolls or stones? Further, consider "man shall not live by bread alone" BUT by every WORD that proceeds out of HIS mouth (Matthew 4:4 and Luke 4:4, as well in Deuteronomy 8:3).
Here is another example of "the silence of God". If the written word is THE Word, why no specific and direct mention of it in the sanctuary? No, the stones under the mercy seat do not count as "The Word", any more than a syllabus or foreward, or any basic synopsis constitutes a text book. If, indeed, "The Word" IS a textbook! The word merely points us to THE WORD! Or distracts, divisive divides...as any good two-edged sword ought.
"My opinion is that the young earth creationists, YEC, will have difficulty doing that, because they reject the data the rest of us findquite reliable.They really have nothing to fight the Darwinian naturalist with, except opinion."
I think this assessment is unfair. For one thing, non-YEC tend to ignore concrete, reliable data, such as the high U/Pb ratios in U halos in Jurassic and Triassic coalified wood samples (indicating young age), the lack of fossil alpha recoil tracks near Po halos (falsifying diffusion hypotheses, leaving rapid formation of Precambrian granites as the lone explanation for Po halo existence), and the high Pb and He retention rates in Precambrian zircons from deep granite cores (indicating that these rocks are thoousands of years old, not 1.5 billion years).
Also, Ellen White clearly condemned the idea that the 6 days of creation weren't really 6 days, and stated clearly that this idea undermines the Sabbath. I don't think your assertion that she was only attacking atheism really addresses what she said. If anything, it makes of none effect what she wrote, which, as you know, is what we were warned the last deception of Satan would be. Given the abundant evidence that supports her creationist position, there really is no reason to go down that road anyway.
Since when must 19th century visions inspired by the Holy Spirit be reduced to mere 19th century science and arguments?
Here the Testimonies flat out state that the idea of the days of creation being long ages undermines the Sabbath, and you make of none effect that statement. Then, to justify doing so, you state that the refusal to make of none effect that statement is in actuality making it of none effect, and is Satanic. Isn't that twisting things a bit?
Jonah was a prophet with a false understanding of God's justice and mercy.
Peter was a prophet who backslid under pressure from his culture on racial equality in Christ.
Paul was a prophet who misunderstood that if Adam has priority because he was created before Eve, then Monkey's have priority because they were created before Adam. In fact that Woman was created after Man means she was meant to be the pinacle, the crown of creation, not lesser to man in the beginning.
So our prophetess, Ellen was right on all the important things, but she can be wrong on some of the details.
It only damages her ministry to treat her as an oracle for God, instead of a wonderful advocate for God.
Those who have more confidence in science than in Scripture seem to be unwilling to admit that the available evidence (which they claim supports evolution and millions of years) can also be used to support the Genesis record, as it has been traditonally understood (i.e., no evolution and a very young earth).
If you want to attack the authority and inspiration of Scripture and the SoP, then cite genuinely erroneous teachings in Scripture, not personal failings of the messengers. To cite personal failings of the Bible writers as a basis for rejecting SoP teachings is fallacious.
But thank you for making clear that you also reject Paul's writings as being authoritative. I think you have made it clear that you take the entire Bible as being like a smorgasboard, with the reader being able to pick and choose what they want to believe. Thus you are violating your baptismal vow that the Bible is the only rule of faith and prctice for the Christian.
If this is the fruit of the belief that the six days weren't six days, then that belief must be opposed.
That still happens. As much as some assert and insist that evidence from geology, paleontology, and biology can be made to fit a YEC scenario, it simply is not so. One can claim it is so, or one can say silly things like "science is not always right" and nibble around the edges at minor points. But guess what? Science does not even claim to always be right. It thrives on gathering, evaluating, discarding, and refining knowledge.
There just is no need to make everything into a conflict. The scriptures are not science textbooks. Why should they be treated as if they are? And after all, even science textbooks a few years or decades old are already outdated relative to current and emerging knowledge.
Now, I have known people, including physicians, from all over the world. Some were SDAs. Some were not SDAs but were Christians. Some were religious, but not Christian. Some were not religious. Some were not at all from Judeo-Christian "western" cultures. In some cases, I was told that I was the first "European" they had ever met. Most of the people I have met in the world have been pretty pleasant people. They have mostly treated me pretty well. I'm pretty sure being an adventist, or being a Christian, or having western cultural values, does not have much to do with how kind or compassionate one is.
My guess is that oversimplifying evolution into the old "nature, red in tooth and claw" struggle for survival and dominance and emphasis on "random" events, is not a sufficient nor accurate characterization. It works well for ridicule and mockery, but it is not how modern biologists view the processes of evolution at all. Care giving behavior has value for humans, but also for many other kinds of animals. It is really built into the behavioral repertoires of mammals, and is common also in many non-mammals. It is natural. I think it does come a little more natuarally for some people than others, and perhaps it is fostered more or less in some cultures than others.
So, yes, I want my physician to be professionally competent. Beyond that, I want her or him to treat me decently and well. I care about what he knows and can apply with regard to science and medicine. I do not care what he believes about scripture. If faith was all that mattered to me perhaps I would go to a faith healer, but I don't
You may forgive me, if I retort, "you can breathe, even if you deny the existence of oxygen". So one can be good even if one denies the existence of God. Yet breathing suggests oxygen, and goodness does suggest a reason we know some things are good and some are not.
I have studied Dale Peterson's "The Moral Lifes of Animals" (2011) and agree that there is wonderful evidence of goodness and kindness and mercy and sometimes justice in animals. Peterson (and perhaps you) offer this as evidence that those virtues evolved. (By the somewhat circular reasoning that states--we know all life evolved--there are virtues seen in life forms--therefore virtues evolved--i.e. human's got it from the critters. Which does not really explain where the critters got it from...)
I as a creationist, take virtues in animals as confirmation that all life was intelligently designed by the same one who revealed the divine source of those virtues, and reinforced them as vital for my humanity.
So I'm not disputing goodness all over the word, but I do wish for at least an acknowledgement that the fact of goodness in creation is as much a challenge for naturalistic, random, evolutionary explanation as is the origins of sexuality, consciousness, and language.
You miss the point. It was the Holy Spirit (who was there when the earth was created) who ispired the prophets to write as they did. The Holy Spirit would not inspire someone to write something that was contrary to science, since God is the author of true science. So the fault cannot be with either the Biblical writers or the Holy Spirit, but with what sometimes passes for science, or our understanding of science.
It just doesn't hold up.... Thanks for the memories.
That is an interesting view on the problem. I'm just not sure it can be so clear cut though.
I would suggest that, while there may be no objective ways of "proving" either side, we could state that there are ways to approach the issues or questions which can in themselves be more, or less, objective.
As you infer: beginning "where I am" is not objective, if for no other reason than that I may be beginning with a pre - supposed position adopted or accepted without any prior scrutiny. All those of us who grow up in a church system by default do exactly that.
Is not the usual approach to science a little different in that it at least tries to distance itself from presupositions in order to ask questions which may lead to discorvery outside of the prior thinking or position?
So, I do agree with the sentiment in your opening point: begin where I am you end up the same place (hopefully).
I think this raises the critical issue for us SDA's and Christians, and to a lesser degree science/tists: Am I doing my utmost to ensure I have questioned my pre - suppositions? Am I doing my utmost to collect as much information relevant to the question as possible?
As you say, when the dots line up it may well be because some are missing. They can be missing because there is no information about them, but they can also be missing because my presuppostions and expectations in my own questioning have been so strong I have been blind to the existence of "dots" that do not fit what I am looking for. Even worse, I may have deliberately downplayed the significance of certains dots because they did not fit and left them out.
Just a few observations.
"Is not the usual approach to science a little different in that it at least tries to distance itself from presupositions in order to ask questions which may lead to discorvery outside of the prior thinking or position?"
That is the expected approach, but it is not what typically happens when this topic is discussed. For example, I asked you at http://www.atoday.org/article/1216/blogs/barrett-chris/positive-mutations-don-t-happen-really for concepts rather than links re: Po halos, and you posted links to fallacious material, expressing your opinion that this material had soundly refuted the Po evidence.
All that you in reality did by stating that you were convinced by the fallacies posted at those two links was demonstrate a lack of objectivity and criticial thinking, a willingness to accept the arguments of evolutionists, including a unitarian universalist, even though both links promoted a point that was soundly refuted decades ago.
Certainly you would not have written what you did if you had known that that material was promoting fallacies. The problem is that you never took the time to see whether or not the points in that material were fallacious, and that demonstrates a lack of the kind of objectivity people, including yourself, expect from science.
To state that I never took the time to see if the points were fallacious is absolutely false.
I have been involved in mining and geology for decades. I happen to know that the basis and approach in the material to which I gave you links will stand up to scrutiny.
I suspect you call it fallacious simply because it does not agree with your conclusions. I don't care a shred what the belief system of the writers are: if they demonstrate through objective analysis, using sound geologic or logical methods that polonium halos are nonsense - then so be it. Sounds to me like you judge whether the material can be valid based on whether they live in your camp or not. No wonder you appear to never seriously learn anything about the bigger picture.
I gave you enough info for you to clearly tell that what you have just written is false. As I already stated, both links you gave stated that Po halos could be Rn halos because Rn-222 rings are indistinguishable from Po-210 rings. And I pointed out what has been known for decades, that while this is true for mica, it is not true for fluorite, and thus Po halos cannot be Rn halos.
While you never said that you actually read Gentry's reports, you did just say that you took the time to see if the skeptics' points were fallacious. Thus, can we conclude that you full well knew that Po-210 and Rn-222 rings are distinguishable in fluorite, and thus that the material at the links was wrong, but that you posted the links and claimed the material was right anyway?
You can't have it both ways. You either knowingly posted links to fallacious material and claimed the material was true, or you never took the time to read Gentry's reports and to critically analyze the arguments of his detractors. Which is it?
For any questions there is evidence that is more compelling than other evidence, methods of enquiry that are more likely to produce reliable results than others, conclusions that are more reliable than others, but in the end there is no absolute proof for most answers. Perhaps we can all rest easier knowing there is mathematical proof for 1+1=2, but I suspect most of us did not doubt that even before the proof was produced. There are some facts that are effectively beyond doubt, but their number is small compared to those 'facts' that we must accept on the weight of evidence rather than proof.
There was a time when many books started with a preface or prolegomena in which the author stated his/her assumptions and working hypotheses. It was a good tradition, and its a pity it has gone out of style.
You may have seen an article Arthur Patrick wrote some time ago talking about Adventism's 'unexamined certainties'. I am not sure the number of such unexamined certainties has decreased to the extent we had hoped. Too many of our discussions seem to be little more than an attempt to argue to a conclusion we have accepted predetermined rather than an attempt to understand another point of view and together reach a consensus on what the truth is.
creatures of all intellects who will inhabit the heavenly realms, those, who by faith have accepted the LORD JESUS CHRIST, AS CREATOR, SUSTAINER, REDEEMER, KING OF KINGS, LORD OF LORDS, THE I AM, THE ALMIGHTY, ETERNAL FATHER, THE PRINCE OF PEACE,who shed his blood on Calvary's tree, as ransom for each soul. The BIBLE speaks to the heart of man. God in His Grace has atoned for every sin. We are free. We are confident.We do not have to fear. Our God Almighty has won the battle for our souls. It makes no difference how long we have returned to dust of the earth, wheather ten years or ten billion years, because we will know nothing after giving up the ghost. He has promised to restore my soul. To the question YEC OR OEC, only God knows the exact moments, and there will be YECS & OECS in the Spirit world of our Eternal Father. Eye hath not seen nor ear heard the majesty of God's Universe. But viewing the
deep Cosmos thru the lens of the HUBBLE telescope, is a gift from God. The heavens declare the glory of our GOD.
I personally think the discussion here demonstrates the topic of YEC vs OEC is still sufficiently debateable that we should be cautious of making dogmatic statements either way. I am more than willing to consider those who embrace YEC as well as those who embrace OEC as brethren. The question is - does everyone else have such tolerance and desire for unity?
Steven F: Re: Articles of Faith, Yes, believe there are too many published FB'S, to the extent they are a barrier to some who would consider fellowship w/SDA'S. Believe there could be half as many and still represent our fundamentals. With the advent of the internet our young people are exposed to
knowledge sources & antiquity as rarely available since the earlier leap forward of the Gutenberg era.
Is this one of the reasons our young are leaving the church during and after college?
My question to Elaine is how she can know that the individuals she makes reference to are unskilled, and how she knows that they rate their ability "much higher than average?" She reads minds now, maybe? This seems to be another subtle way of calling "unbelievers" (those who haven't yet been infected by the evolution bug) stupid.
Well, they said that Paul was a babbler, and that he was mad. And they said that Jesus was possessed by the devil. So I gues we're in good company.
appear to be a prime candidate for psycho-analysis. Am certain from having perused each contribution to this thread that i am woefully out of my class in academic studies in the natural sciencies of geology, anthropology, psychology, etal. My studies were in other areas, so confess i can't, nor seek to come across as an expert in anything. i am in my 80's. I have been SDA since 1969. i have loved my Lord since i was 8 yrs of age. Have served as head elder in a large church congregation. My daughters were in SDA education from grade one thru PUC & Andrews U. and have served as student missionaries in Mexico & Haiti. Due to my health am not currently attending any church. i love studying several hours every day. Having had personal disappointing meetings with both Union & Conference officers in audit & constituancy roles, and disappointment of larceny & chichanery in high places in SDA, perhaps some of you are also discouraged. Some years back i subscribed to Adventist Today, but haven't lately. Three days ago thot it may be interesting to check back to see what is happening here. i happened on this thread & read every comment. Hadn't planned to add my input. To your questions: i do not wish to create any problems. i am ambivalent re: YEC & OEC. i would not wish to exclude any sincere searching sinner from fellowship (be they divorcees, colors, ethnicities, homosexuals, or any baggage). He w/o sin, cast your stone. i belong to no organizations. i am reclusive. i am not fighting any dragons on mountain tops. i am fairly sure earlier in life i was a prime Peter Principle candidate. Am i welcome?
It is never to late to learn. As long as we all have an open mind and can be respectful of each other, discussions like this are extremely informative.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akiva_ben_Joseph
Believe it or not, some people actually don’t like being confronted with direct questions.
For example, if I asked Elaine or Ervin to identify specific examples the Dunning-Kruger effect that Elaine claims to be “well illustrated by some remarks made here,” and that Ervin says “goes to the heart of the issue or problem” and is a “first class” analysis of the problem by Elaine, I would expect/get no answer.
I could be mistaken, and probably am, but doesn’t the Dunning-Kruger effect actually have more to do with humor, grammar and logical skills and abilities than with “education”?
Of course, again, I expect no answer.
If you have never known someone or anyone who has represented the Dunning-Kruger effect, then it is not important to you. For many, they seem to respond as
understanding the principle expressed in that theory. All theories don't have exact applications. If the shoe fits, then it it applies.
Besides, I wasn’t actually asking you for examples, I was making a point about asking and answering questions such as these.
I would imagine that Ervin got it.
SDA Christians Attempting A Creation Consensus[?]
August 31, 2012
Jack Hoehn
2 months ago
I do have to try and differentiate between the fact that God created life with the capacity to change and adapt (you can call this "evolve"), and the supposition that "EVOLUTION" is a mechanism that can explain the complexity of life, without an intelligent designer, or with minimal if any input from a distant, Deistic kind of God. Intelligent Design is a movement that says, Darwinian, Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a mechanism for the complexity seen in life is an inadequate, false science. I'm not the one to defend it, but I do believe it, and it is defensible.
a) The strengths of modern science are in its dogged pursuit of the details.
b) The weakness of modern science is its unwillingness to accept the philosophical consequences of letting back in an Intelligent Designer for very philosophical reasons, not very good scientific ones, and hiding or minimizing that fact.
[How to say this: I believe the “strength” and “weakness” conflict all the way to irrelevance or the NEED for GREAT faith/belief – in the “Scientific” “Method” . . . (!) And/or: creationists ARE scientists – of an uncommon sort . . . (!) Who are FULLY competent to engage in “science”, be they OECs or YECs. “Curious”, eh?]
cb25
2 months ago
Jack,
Fact? that God created vs supposition? that evolution is a mechanism that can explain.... If you have enough evidence to assert the former is a fact and the latter is based on suppositions - you and I have nothing to gain by discussion I guess.
Stephen Foster
2 months ago
Well Jack, by the time you have the time to respond to this we may be on to some other aspect of this general topic, but what is confusing about your opinion is that it is based on data that you deem quite reliable; but what reliable about what?
In other words, what does your reliable data ultimately tell you about what God did, and said; or what He did not do, or what He didn’t say?
Atheists have a more intellectually coherent opinion than theistic evolutionists who are Christians, or Christians who are evolutionists.
Once you concede that God exists
and is revealed in scripture;
then supernatural intervention is in play.
Once supernatural intervention is in play,
then any [“ “] evidence [“ “]
that it took place
or didn't take place
is impossible to produce. [see*]
Jack Hoehn
2 months ago
I have never questioned if God can and do anything. But since what God has done clearly, and I must say again clearly, did not[stated confidently*] happen 6,000 years ago, or 144 hours before the first human appeared on earth, then I must recognize that God has left evidence that my previous short term chronology was wrong. I have never asked or doubted that the designer of the eye, or the double helix, could do things. I am only trying to understand
from the evidence He has left
how
and when he did it[see*].
Elaine Nelson
2 months ago
Soon [!? “christian” or “scientist” !?] there will be at least ten different "camps" each with their particular interpretation of origins. Does it really make a difference? If it doesn't change or affect our daily lives why is it of such tremendous importance to make a decision on origins? Will our decisions change us for the better? Shouldn't all such issues be subject to change if and when discoveries are made which are impossible to ignore? [When do “discoveries” become valid? When do they become “impossible to ignore”. Are “we” “required” to “respond” to all discoveries? When should “we” respond?]
The term "Darwinism" is thrown about as having an onus only slightly less than a devil worshiper. Yet no one today can ignore the profound results of both Wallace and Darwin and the affects on the entire world of biological science. [This reminds me of an episcopal christian “creationist” physicist placing all “scientific progress” at the feet of such as Wallace and Darwin . . . a lecture at which I was present - and awake - 20+ years ago.]
What is the alternative that should be taught in SDA universities about origins?
Is it not of primary importance[“primary” may be somewhat strong . . .] for a well rounded education today?
By the conversations here it appears that there is an assortment of ideas, none of which could likely meet qualifications for teaching, but only private opinions.
Can "supernaturalism" be taught? What is the criteria? Textbooks? How does one explain "supernatural" events in an analytical manner which is essential for instruction?[How come every “answer” science “discovers” only INCREASES their – scientists - incredulity/consternation . . . ]
Is any position based on faith[ . . . uh, what intelligence we have acquired (assumed/arrogated) . . .] a proper subject for a college curriculum? An example: Adventists accept the seventh day as a sabbath and a day of rest. But there are many and various reasons for doing so and currently, there are no stipulations on exactly how and why it should be held sacred. Evidently, there are some beliefs, perhaps many, that should not go beyond a simple statement and leave the why and how to each individual. Isn't that the meaning of freedom of conscience?
Darrel Lindensmith
2 months ago
Elaine I think we should teach science honestly!!!! In the Introduction to the 1971 edition to Darwin’s, The Origin of Species, are these words:
“The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded in an unproven theory. Is it then a science or faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is exactly parallel to belief in special creation” (Dr. L. H. Harrison Matthews).
It seems your view of 'faith' is to believe things that have no evidence.
The world does [not] work that way.
In Everything we think we know as a fact, faith is involved. Matthews is not being unscientific in stating the above, No more than Charles Darwin was when he wrote in his chapter called, Difficulties with the Theory.
We should teach evolution, but teach it completely!!! Students must understand the many many difficulties with the theory and not[be] given this cult version where it must always be show[n] true and right!
Elaine Nelson
2 months ago
In truth, everything we know is theory; but evidence is not equally found in all theories. Where is the evidence for the literal Genesis story? [see*, and what is “required” for discoveries to BE
evidence?]
Faith, as described in Hebrews, is based on unseen evidence, so it is not simply my view of faith but established biblically[See: “Evidence That Demands A Verdict” in several editions. See:Ps 19:1-6; Ps 60:1-4; ].
We use faith on a daily basis, but it is adopted when there has been years of experience justifying such faith[!].
We have faith that our monies will be protected in banks; that our cars will run if properly maintained, etc.
But faith, as used in religion (isn't that how we are using it in this topic?) cannot be substantiated to the same extent and satisfaction as are the biological evidence{“ “}[this is a “requirement”/”problem”? And must it again be mentioned that “science” is willingly in conflict WITH ITSELF . . .].
Evolution is all about us and it is demonstrated regularly[Please excuse, but this is strongly congruent with what I have commonly heard described as a “bromide” . . . **]. It is used in Christian circles as a catch-all phrase meaning anything that seems to conflict with the first chapter of Genesis[Maybe, and: “Is that WRONG? :()].
. . .
Darrel Lindensmith
2 months ago
2007,the world's top scientific journal, Nature: "the idea that human minds are the product of evolution" is an "unassailable fact," "the idea that man was created in the image of God can surely be put aside." "Evolution and the brain," Nature, Vol. 447:753 (June 14, 2007). Elaine, see the definition of evolution, not from Gen. One people but from this very popular college evolutionary biology textbook used in upper division evolutionary biology courses : "[b]y coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.". Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, pg. 5 (3d ed., Sinaeur Associates
cb25
2 months ago
"Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous."
Then, for God's sake, let's find better ways to explain why we have faith that He IS!
[The “scientist” said it; therfore I believe it!? Is no one aware of the quote: “We must not allow the divine foot in the door”? http://bevets.com/equotesl3.htm *** ]
Perhaps it is just easier to keep flogging evolutionary theory[or fact? Is cb25 inferrring? 'Says “theory”, means “fact”?] than to reexamine ways to defend a faith in God.
*
answersingenesis.com
creationscience.com
wyattmuseum.com
**
A bromide is a phrase or platitude . . .
***
For an institution to explain the world so as to make the world legitimate, it must possess several features. First, the institution as a whole must appear to derive from sources outside of ordinary human social struggle. It must not seem to be the creation of political, economic, or social forces, but to descend into society form a supra-human source. Second, the ideas, pronouncements, rules, and results of the institution’s activity must have a validity and a transcendent truth that goes beyond any possibility of human compromise or human error. Its explanations and pronouncements must seem to be true in an absolute sense and to derive somehow form an absolute source. They must be true for all time and all place. And finally, the institution must have a certain mystical and veiled quality so that its innermost operation is not completely transparent to everyone. It must have an esoteric language, which needs to be explained to the ordinary person by those who are especially knowledgeable and who can intervene between everyday life and mysterious sources of understanding and knowledge.
The Christian Church or indeed any revealed religion fits these requirements perfectly, and so religion has been an ideal institution for legitimating society. If only people with special grace, whether they be priests, pastors, or ordinary citizens, are in direct contact with the divine inspiration through revelations, then we must depend upon them completely for an understanding of what has been divinely decreed.
But this description also fits science and has made it possible for science to replace religion as the chief legitimating force in modern society. Science claims a method that is objective and nonpolitical, true for all time. Scientists truly believe that except for the unwanted intrusions of ignorant politicians, science is above the social fray. Biology as Ideology (1992) p.7-8
Not only the methods and institutions of science are said to be above ordinary human relations but, of course, the product of science is claimed to be a kind of universal truth. The secrets of nature are unlocked. Once the truth about nature is revealed, one must accept the facts of life. When science speaks, let no dog bark. Finally, science speaks in mysterious words. No one except an expert can understand what scientists say and do, and we require the mediation of special people – science journalists, for example, or professors who speak on the radio – to explain the mysteries of nature because otherwise there is nothing but indecipherable formulas. Nor can one scientists always understand the formulas of another. Once, when Sir Solly Zuckerman, the famous English zoologist, was asked what he did when he read a scientific paper and came across mathematical formulas, he said, “I hum them.”
Despite its claims to be above society, science, like the Church before it, is a supremely social institution, reflecting and reinforcing the dominant values and views of society at each historical epoch. Sometimes the source in social experience of a scientific theory and the way in which that scientific theory is a direct translation of social experience are completely evident, even at a detailed level. The most famous case is Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection. Biology as Ideology (1992) p.8-9
The problem is to get them to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations, and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth. The reason that people do not have a correct view of nature is not that they are ignorant of this or that fact about the material world, but that they look to the wrong sources in their attempt to understand. "Billions and Billions of Demons" New York Review of Books January 9, 1997
There can be no observations without an immense apparatus of preexisting theory. Before sense experiences become "observations" we need a theoretical question, and what counts as a relevant observation depends upon a theoretical frame into which it is to be placed. Repeatable observations that do not fit into an existing frame have a way of disappearing from view, and the experiments that produced them are not revisited... The standard form of a scientific paper begins with a theoretical question, which is then followed by the description of an experimental technique designed to gather observations pertinent to the question. Only then are the observations themselves described. Finally there is a discussion section in which a great deal of energy is often expended rationalizing the failure of the observations to accord entirely with a theory we really like, and in which proposals are made for other experiments that might give more satisfactory results. Sagan's suggestion that only demonologists engage in "special pleading, often to rescue a proposition in deep rhetorical trouble," is certainly not one that accords with my reading of the scientific literature. Nor is this a problem unique to biology. The attempts of physicists to explain why their measurements of the effects of relativity did not agree with Einstein's quantitative prediction is a case no doubt well known to Sagan. "Billions and Billions of Demons"
As to assertions without adequate evidence, the literature of science is filled with them, especially the literature of popular science writing. Carl Sagan's list of the "best contemporary science-popularizers" includes E.O. Wilson, Lewis Thomas, and Richard Dawkins, each of whom has put unsubstantiated assertions or counterfactual claims at the very center of the stories they have retailed in the market. "Billions and Billions of Demons"
It is said that there is no place for an argument from authority from science. The community of science is constantly self-critical ... It is certainly true that within each narrowly defined scientific field there is constant challenge to new technical claims and to old wisdom. ... But when scientists transgress the bounds of their own specialty they have no choice but to accept the claims of authority, even though they do not know how solid the grounds of those claims may be. Who am I to believe that quantum physics if not Steven Weinberg, or about the solar system if not Carl Sagan? What worries me is that they may believe what Dawkins and Wilson tell them about evolution. "Billions and Billions of Demons"
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. "Billions and Billions of Demons"
Given the immense extent, inherent complexity, and counterintuitive nature of scientific knowledge, it is impossible for anyone, including non-specialist scientists, to retrace the intellectual paths that lead to scientific conclusions about nature. In the end we must trust the experts and they, in turn, exploit their authority as experts and their rhetorical skills to secure our attention and our belief in things that we do not really understand. "Billions and Billions of Demons"
Theodosius Dobzhansky, the leading empirical evolutionary geneticist of the twentieth century, who spent most of his life staring down a microscope at chromosomes, vacillated between deism, gnosticism, and membership in the Russian Orthodox Church. He could not understand how anyone on his or her deathbed could remain an unrepentant materialist. I, his student and scientific epigone, ingested my unwavering atheism and a priori materialism along with the spinach at the parental dinner table. "The Wars Over Evolution" New York Review of Books October 20, 2005
- meaning to esteem others much . . . [perhaps my total post fails to exceed that of others . . . ]