“Don’t Call Yourselves Seventh-Day Adventists…”
by
by Jack Hoehn, August 18, 2014
Jack’s question to Ted Wilson and Ed Zinke was removed by the editors of the Adventist Review website 10 minutes after it was published, so you will have to read it here.
It took 10 minutes for the Adventistreview.org website to disapprove of my question as the first comment on a news article posted on line this morning. So for 10 minutes you could read my unedited comment, before it was vetoed.
I tried to be respectful and courteous to the reporter, to Ted Wilson, and to Ed Zinke, even though they were asking me to leave my church.
According to the news article, those who have a different scientific opinion on the age of the earth and life on it than Mr. Wilson, and those whose theology does not require the same Biblical Literalism that Mr. Zinke sees as essential to my salvation, are invited to leave Seventh-day Adventism.
“World church President Ted N.C. Wilson forcefully asserted that life has existed on the Earth for only a few thousand years, not millions of years, as he opened an educators conference in Utah on Friday, and he said teachers who believe otherwise should not call themselves Seventh-day Adventists. . . ." according to Adventist Review news editor Andrew McChesney.[i]
Mr. Wilson’s assertion on the age of the earth must have been forceful because of the fact that he is “World Church President,” as there is no scientific model available to support his “forceful assertion” of a few thousand year history of life on earth.[ii] So I guess my question was, does a man elected to his office by people like me have the right to disenfranchise people like me who elected him to his position, based on a scientific opinion different from his?
“Ed Zinke, an Adventist theologian, businessman and co-organizer of the conference, explained in an interview that the implications of misinterpreting the Bible could run deep and seriously harm a person’s relationship with God,” McChesney continues.
Mr. Ed Zinke and I attended the same classes at Pacific Union College; we had the same theology teachers for my religion major and his theology major. I have read and valued the teachings of Ellen G. White as Ed does. I have worked for the Seventh-day Adventist church all my life both as a denominational employee in African mission service (13 years) and in the Adventist Health system for the rest of my career. Yet Ed thinks that Ellen White cannot be right on the fact of creation and at the same time be wrong on the chronology of creation.
Ed should know as well as I do that according to the Ellen G. White Encyclopedia, pages 706 and 707, “Nothing would prevent those who value her writings today from accepting the conventional age for the universe determined by scientists. . . . Ellen White’s references to about 6,000 years of earth history and about 4,000 years from creation to the Incarnation cannot rightfully be used to provide a complete chronology, because Ellen White relied upon Archbishop James Ussher for these and other dates that were found in the margins of most Bibles in the mid-nineteenth century. . . . Just as we should caution against using Ellen White’s writings to settle the date for Creation, so we must caution against using her writings to settle the date for the Incarnation or the Crucifixion. For her, chronology is never an end in itself, but a means to an end.”[iii]
So, trying very hard to be approved by the website, I wrote a respectful and courteous question as the first comment to the article. I wanted to ask Andrew and Ted and Ed,
So what shall the rest of us call ourselves now? Seventh-day Scientists, Seventh-day Realists, Seventh-day Old Earth Creationists? Has anyone the right to call for a purge of Seventh-day Adventists, based on a scientific opinion?”
My question was removed by the editors about 11 minutes after I posted it, and they “will not be able to respond to inquiries regarding that.” But then that is exactly why you read Adventist Today. Your answers to this question are welcome.
An Update by Jack:
~~August 19, 2014 Update: A Stranger Story. On the Adventist Review website under McChesney’s news article on the morning of 8/18/2014 there were “No Comments” when I made mine, I was offered the opportunity of “Be the first to comment.” My comment and question was taken off the comments 11 minutes after I wrote it from the blog. I then wrote my Adventist Today blog above.
Miraculously on the Adventist Review site later that day my comment/question then reappeared, with comments of 3 days and 2 days age above mine, and replies by two commenters below mine. Happy that dialog was now permitted, I replied briefly to one who commented on my question.
Oh no, my brief response to the comments have again been removed by the editor when I check back this morning 8/19/2014.
I was thrown out of denominational teaching years ago because of my divergent views of creation and the gospel. I was a 100% dedicated teacher. Being thrown out was the most painful experience I have ever had and I have no intention to repeat it. I have had very little contact with church since then. However, since SDA is my roots I thought a few months back that I would take a second look at the church. I don’t like what I see. It appears that with my beliefs I can never be an SDA. I have tried to the best of my human ability to base my beliefs upon the empirical evidence available. I cannot believe in a 6000 year old earth in the presence of disconfirming evidence. Yet some seem to be able to believe no matter what. The them, the evidence is meaningless. That is not me. If on judgment day I am condemned to the fires of hell because I couldn’t believe in a young earth I want God to explain to why He provided all this physical evidence showing an old earth when it was actually young. God why did you deceive me?
So sorry to hear of your experience Paul. So sad! Such a great loss for us and so many who have been expelled. Are you related to Larry Priest. He was my boss for many years. Wonderful man!
Jack, while it is not a strictly 'scientific' model, the Omphalos hypothesis does provide an alternative rationale for the way things might look and there still be a short chronology. This brief sumamry from, dare I mention it, Wikipedia.
' The Omphalos hypothesis is the argument that God created the world recently (in the last ten thousand years, in keeping withFlood geology), but complete with signs of great age. It was named after the title of an 1857 book, Omphalos by Philip Henry Gosse, in which Gosse argued that in order for the world to be "functional", God must have created the Earth with mountains and canyons, trees with growth rings, Adam and Eve with hair, fingernails, and navels (omphalos is Greek for "navel"), and that therefore no evidence that we can see of the presumed age of the earth and universe can be taken as reliable.'
Note that date of publication…… 1857. Perhaps J Bates and friends may have read it. Maybe Wilson II et al ascribe to the theory.
Yes the 'Trickster God' argument, as some call it. I do think it is at least a more intellectually honest answer than trying to use creation science. It at least says science simply looks at what can be observed – not what is. And it shouldn't suprise us to learn that the earth is observed as being billions of years old.
Why God would create the world repelete with fossils though is a bit of a problem. I don't know the answer because I'm no scientist.
Serge think about what you are saying. Did God's creating the earth with age include this? A very convincing piece of evidence for an old earth was found in the form of a fossil nuclear reactor in Gabon, West Africa. It was found that the U-235 content was much lower than in normal uranium deposits. It was also found that the percentages of many isotopes at Oklo were similar to those of the spent fuel generated by modern nuclear power plants. This and other evidence lead scientists to conclude that the Oklo uranium deposits represented a fossil nuclear reactor. Fifteen natural fission reactors were found in three different ore deposits at the Oklo uranium mine. The uranium in the Earth is made up mainly of the isotopes, U-238 and U-235, although a very small percentage of U-234 will also be present. All of these isotopes decay at different rates. U-235 decays about six-and-a-third times faster than U-238. As a result, the proportion of U-235 to U-238 decreases over time. The present proportion in current uranium deposits is about 99.3 percent U-238 and about 0.7 percent U-235. Normally, uranium isotope ratios are the same in all uranium ores wherever, found on earth, in meteorites, or in moon rocks. So any change in this ratio indicates a process other than radioactive decay. In the case of the Oklo deposits the reduced ratio was due to a natural nuclear reaction. To support a chain reaction the U-235 needs to be around three percent. Calculating back from 0.7 percent to a three percent concentration places the reactor at 1.7 billion years ago. Apparently when the Oklo deposits would become saturated with water, the water would slow down the neutrons produce by decay allowing a chain reaction to start. As the temperature of the deposits increased the water would evaporate away shutting the chain reaction down. This process repeated itself hundreds of times until the U-235 isotope percentage dropped below what was required to sustain a chain reaction.
So accounting for the present ratio of U-235 by postulating a fossil nuclear reactor, are you postulating that at some time in the past this fossil reactor contained a higher concentration of U-235 than would naturally occur elsewhere?
What do you think was the primordial ratio of U-235 to U-238 and how do you arrive at this conclusion?
Umm, Paul……….. read carefully what I said. Wislon et al might ascribe to that hypothesis. I, perhaps not so clearly, do not. I think it risible. Fact is, I don't care about origins. Such 'unknowables' are mere speculations about which one can only enjoy intellectual exercises. Weight lifting for the mind, and about as useful. But for those who enjoy such thigns, go for it. The reason SDAs are so caught up with it is of course entirley related to their erroneous views of the role and nature of Sabbath in their equally erroneous schema of presumed end-time events. Mark of the Beast and all that. Heavens, teh sabbath doctrine itself arose out of the erroneous IJ / literal heavenly sanctuary belief. What a shemozzle it all is. And how unnecessary.
No, we have only one real task……. to discover who we are in our real, inmost nature, today. That is something here and now that I can, and must, deal with. Fortunately, the answer is wonderful.
No. the ratio of 235 to 238 is much the same in all the uranium deposits around the world. So 1.7 billion years ago that ratio of 235 to 238 at Oklo was the same as the rest of the world’s deposits. Do a google search on fossil nuclear reactor to get the details. The article first appeared in Sci. Am. in 1973 I think. Dr. Brown of the Geoscience Institute introduced to this article in 1980 it busted my young earth belief.SURPRISE SUPRISE–my question from this morning that was removed has reappeared on the Adventist Review web page! Thank you Review Editors. How nice to be allowed for subscribers and church members still in good an regular standing to discuss this issue openly. May I suggest that Adventist Today readers with questions and opinions try joining the conversation on the Adventistreview.org site? Let's see how open they are, not to the "Adventism is rubbish" crowd, but the "I am an Adventist who disagrees with President Wilson's tactics."
oh, duh…. can't I come too? 🙁
Similarly, would President Wilson expect someone who adhere's to John Walton's Cosmic Temple model of creation to 'get out of the Church'?
For those who are unfamilar, Walton effectively argues that the 6 literal days of creation describe not the material construction of the earth, but rather its inauguration. He uses the analogy of the Temple, which is the sort of ancient mindset Moses’ audience would have understood. To use a modern analogy of a restaurant:
'When does a restaurant, he says, begin to exist? It is not just when the building is finished and the kitchen is installed and the chairs and tables set up. It is when the restaurant opens for business and begins to function as a restaurant. That is when the restaurant is really created. It is not enough just for the material building to be built for that to be a restaurant. It needs to be functioning in a certain way. When it begins to function in that way, that is the date at which you would say “this restaurant began to exist.”'[1]
When you think about it logically, even though it took twenty years for Solomon to build the Temple (1 Kings 9:10), the Temple technically didn’t exist until it was inaugurated (2 Chron. 7:5). Otherwise, how could they construct the Most Holy Place, which only the High Priest was allowed to enter once a year (Heb. 9:7)?
As admitted by Adventist theologian Roy Gane from Andrews University:
'Like Seventh-day Adventists, John Walton accepts literal days in Genesis 1 and a special role for the Sabbath. It appears that we could adopt his interpretation of the Sabbath as the culmination of a week-long inauguration of God’s cosmic temple—an idea that he finds in the Bible, in agreement with some analogies in ancient Near Eastern texts—as a significant contribution to Seventh-day Adventist theology of the Sabbath. He has also enhanced our understanding by drawing attention to God’s role in assigning functions as an integral part of his creative process. Walton is right that not every day of creation brought new material into being: For example, the Sabbath was not new material.' (emphasis added)[2]
Now I am not saying I endorse Walton’s views. I am simply pointing out that there is possibly more than one way to read Genesis 1-2a literally, and to affirm 6 literal days of creation.
Surely an SDA science teacher who adhere to Walton's model, because it still affirms 6 literal days of creation?
< http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s9-07>, retrieved 19 Aug 14.
< http://www.memorymeaningfaith.org/blog/2011/03/the-lost-and-found-world-of-genesis-1.html#more>, retrieved 19 Aug 14.
Re footnote 2 and the GRI.
I almost feel sorry for the staff. Being commanded to turn dirt into gold must be a very daunting task.
Yet another alternative is to be found in the Jewish concepts that there are various stages of 'creation' overall. Roughly equating to the words creating, forming, and making. There is a fourth but I do not recall it. I have seen Jewish commentary on Bereshit (Genesis) suggesting this is how one ought understand this process. Curious, just how do the Rabbis interpret the 6 literal days? Literally?
As an example, Isa 45:18 For thus saith Jehovah that created the heavens, the God that formed the earth and made it, that established it and created it not a waste, that formed it to be inhabited: I am Jehovah; and there is none else.
We might be inclined to see these various verbs as synonyms. But certain Jewish interpreters see this as representing various stages of a process. Similar to the human creative process. One has the creative idea. One then works out how to execute it. One then makes the thing. Created. Formed. Made.
Strikes me as a more 'organic' way of understanding Genesis1 than simplistic literality.
You can tie Isaiah 45:18 directly to Genesis 1 and 2.
The opening statement in Genesis says that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Then it explains that the earth was formless and void. In the first three days God formed the earth and sky to be inhabited. In the next three days God populated the earth and sky with their inhabitants. On the seventh and final day God established the purpose of earth and sky to be a shrine devoted to Himself.
But of course some writers here will de-construct this sequence. Some de-construct Day 7. Others proceed to de-construct Days 1 to 6. Still others de-sonstruct the very notion that God ever did anything all the way back to the very beginning.
Some writers in their haste to preserve "Adventist distinctives" will glibly ignore the over-arching message of Genesis 1 and 2 as summarized in Isaiah 45:18. Others who deny the existence or involvement of God will deny the Anthropic Principle which is also explicated in Isaiah 45:18 – God did not create the heavens and the earth to be waste. Still others will ignore or explain away the final conclusion of Isaiah 45:18 – I AM the LORD and there is NONE ELSE.
Thank you Serge for providing us with a single verse from Isaiah that so neatly ties together so much of the current debate on this web site !
I left the church more than 40 years ago, mainly over this issue. I have no regret about doing so–it seemed to me at the time that it would be dishonest of me to stay if the church really required me to believe something I could not. While I do not see myself as a defender of evolution (the concept, like any other, must stand or fall on its own merits, based on evidence), it is abundantly clear to anyone who examines evidence reasonably that the 6,000 year figure is far, far from correct. It is astonishing that a group as large as the SDA church that claims to be devoted to "True Education" would still be indoctrinating its children in ways of denying something as obvious as the age of the earth.
I'm not arguing against a Creator God. Who can tell The Almighty Creator of rational brains how It should have made things happen. But when? That is another matter. Nature is real. There is a tangible fossil record, and whatever else we may believe about the Creator God, surely we do not believe It is a liar on of cosmic proportions.
Why is this even an issue? Because those who argue about it ad nauseum are more in love with their supposed knowledge and their arrogance from self-measured wisdom than with Jesus. They are more devoted to winning debates that build their egos instead of doing what builds the kingdom of God. They have not allowed themselves to become lost in the "foolish things" that God uses to humble the proud and debase the arrogant, the things that God wants us to know.
A pox on both your houses for refusing to do anything but argue!
I have no "enemies" list. My eldest grand-son whose company I enjoy immensely, never met someone who wasn't his firend. He reminds me very much of myself at his age. Fortunately for him nobody has yet wounded him deeply. Unfortunately, it will inevitably happen.
God gives different gifts to different people. It is interesting to do a spiritual gifts inventory of yourself and compare it with those around you. We need to learn to appreciate the gifts that God gives to others, not just those given to us.
A decade ago an older gentleman who was a semi-retired Christian counselor, told me how much he appreciated the fact that I would spend so much time on Sabbath morning listening to and talking with the "low lifes" that most other people in the congregation avoided. A couple weeks ago a gnetleman in our congregation approached me and thanked me for writing something so clearly in our church newsletter that even a simple person like him could be blessed (his words not mine). he was able to share those ideas with a business associate during the week.
Why is this even an issue?
Because the current worldwide leader of the SDA church in his recently published speech (which I have studied in its entirety) has called for those who do not interpret Genesis exactly as he does, to be excluded from church employment and strongly insinuated that he does not consider them to be Seventh-day Adventists. In his speech he conflates the question of the age of the earth with almost every one of our core values as he sees them. And to support his position he places Ellen White on the same pedestal with the Bible.
Now anyone who has read much of what I have written here knows that I am a fairly staunch believer in the Bible and that I hold both William Miller and Ellen White in fairly high regard. But I do not believe that we should be using our own beliefs as a means of excluding others from fellowship. Rather we should be using them to draw people in.
There is no statement in the Bible that the earth is 6,000 years old, nor is this statment currently part of our Fundamental Beliefs. I myself do not claim to know how old is the earth. But even if I knew, I like to think that I would not be pushing aside those who disagree with me on this question.
~~August 19, 2014 Update: A Stranger Story. On the Adventist Review website under McChesney’s news article on the morning of 8/18/2014 there were “No Comments” when I made mine, I was offered the opportunity of “Be the first to comment.” My comment and question was taken off the comments 11 minutes after I wrote it from the blog. I then wrote my Adventist Today blog above.
Miraculously on the Adventist Review site later that day my comment/question then reappeared, with comments of 3 days and 2 days age above mine, and replies by two commenters below mine. Happy that dialog was now permitted, I replied briefly to one who commented on my question.
Oh no, my brief response to the comments have again been removed by the editor when I check back this morning 8/19/2014.
This is so “Pravda” like. One suspects the editors must have studied in the USSR to learn how to do this? Well look at this little footnote: Andrew McChesney had served as the editor-in-chief of The Moscow Times since June 2006….
Let me just say, in response to the call for "a pox" on our houses, that I wish you, William, and everyone else here, nothing but the best of health and good fortune, regardless of what you may choose to believe.
Thank you, Joe. It isn't the opinions about creation that I'm complaining about, it's the arrogance and egotism on both sides and the insistence on arguing instead of doing what God told us to do.
William,
What should I do if I believe that God is telling me to write? What should I do if I believe God is telling me to raise a voice for the Adventist "center" that is seriously under-represented in so many of the discussions on this web site?
A while ago I attended one of the larger "institutional" Adventist churches. A theology professor of long acquaintance told me he was glad that I was advocating for the Adventist "center" on this web site. This gentleman is a very Godly and personable man, not an ivory-tower air-head. He conducts Bible seminars for teachers and pastors all over the world. He lives in a fish-bowl and has to be very circumspect in his own public statements and avoid controversy wherever possible.
When you are in the middle you need to be willing to take-on both of the extremes. This is not always a popular undertaking.
William you seem to be using the word argue to mean altercation. To argue is to offer reasons for believing that a claim is true. Isaiah argued against the Idolatry of his day and was cut in two. Eligia argued against the prophets of Baal and had to flee for his life. Jeremiah argued and was thrown in prison. Arguments are always in the context what is true and false. People who want to learn what is true use arguments. Consequently, arguments are the tools of the trade for scientists, lawyers, business managers, students and simple people like me. As long as there is truth to be found there will be arguments. And truth by its nature will always demand constant criticism and review. Arguments is what it is all about.
opps didn't catch that little typo. Elijah
I am not very keen on arguing as a means of arriving at "Truth," but discussions can be enlightening in getting people to put forth the best case for what they consider true (or not true). But it is difficult to get people to get on the same footing for an argument, discussion, or debate–especially if the discussants are unable to agree on what constitutes evidence, or even whether some evidence is admissible. Reliance on differing authorities, with differing degrees of conviction also makes debate and discussion difficult to manage.
There are so many different cognitive styles. I get the impression that for some people there are only two possibilities, being right and being wrong. All things not true are false. There are only truths and errors. Nothing between. If you are not with me you are against me. It is as if The Great Controversy is played out in every aspect of every moment of every life. But it seems to me that life is not a "true or false" test. Some of our arguments seem to take on an "is not/is too" flavor. I don't even think life is "multiple choice."
For me, there is so much room between being certain that something is correct and being certain that it is incorrect, that I see quite clearly that I am certain of much, much less than I confidently know. The thing is, I am fine with that. I am quite content with holding much information within the range of the relatively uncertain.
This does not mean that I am unable to make "yes or no" decisions, it just means I often employ probabilities rather than black or white stereotypes. I try to make evidence-based decisions, but evidence available is not always conclusive.
I got the point Joe.
Sorry, there are not 3 simultaneous articles on AToday right now on this same topic about Creationism.
Joe: 'But SDA leadership seems to be forbidding people to give due consideration to evidence. I'm not an SDA, although I am a former SDA school teacher, as were my mother and sister. If I cared to be a member of the church I would certainly strongly oppose such restrictions on teaching young people about science and how to obtain and evaluate evidence.'
I am still struggling to see why there has to even be such restriction. The SDA position reflects the Bible, which is to say creation in 6 literal days (hang-in there with me). But the Bible doesn't talk about evolution, whether for or against. That is an extra-biblical discussion.
As far as I know, there are at least three different theological models that an SDA science teacher or academic could adhere to, which does uphold creation in 6 literal days, but without necessarily limitating thoughts on scientific origins:
1. The 'Heaven-Centric' model
As I have explained previously, this is the observation that time is not constant but in fact relative. Atomic clocks in space proove this 100%.
So is Genesis 1-2a actually 6 literal days of creation from the perspective of God and the angels in heaven, not human beings (who didn't yet exist) on earth (which didn't yet exist)? That would be a more 'literal' reading of the Bible. And how fast do angels count time in heaven – who knows?
2. John Walton’s ‘Cosmic Temple’ model
Walton effectively argues that the 6 literal days of creation describe not the material construction of the earth, but rather its inauguration. He uses the analogy of the Temple, which is the sort of ancient near-eastern mindset Moses’ audience would have understood.
Walton uses the modern analogy of a restaurant:
'When does a restaurant, he says, begin to exist? It is not just when the building is finished and the kitchen is installed and the chairs and tables set up. It is when the restaurant opens for business and begins to function as a restaurant. That is when the restaurant is really created. It is not enough just for the material building to be built for that to be a restaurant. It needs to be functioning in a certain way. When it begins to function in that way, that is the date at which you would say “this restaurant began to exist.”'[1]
3. The ‘Omphalos’ model
As Serge rightly pointed out, the ‘Omphalos’ model is a third alternative way of affirming 6 literal days of creation. It is actually a very old theory, originating from an 1857 book by Phillip Henry Goose, where:
'Gosse argued that in order for the world to be "functional", God must have created the Earth with mountains and canyons, trees with growth rings, Adam and Eve with hair, fingernails, and navels (omphalos is Greek for "navel"), and that therefore no evidence that we can see of the presumed age of the earth and universe can be taken as reliable.'
…Although the grasses were only a moment old at their creation, they appeared as if they were months old. Likewise, the trees, although only a day old when they sprouted forth, were nevertheless like years old as they were fully grown and fruits were already budding on their branches.[1]
Some might mock these three models of creation, but it seems the GRI doesn't have its own model. With all respect, if there is to be any blame (or sympathy) in this whole discussion, then much of it lies with the GRI itself.
I do wonder how dogmatic the official world Adventist leadership can be on this subject, when its own handpicked scientists can’t even offer a viable model.[1] The GRI also quite honestly lists a range of common anti-evolution arguments and conspiracy theories, which they say Creationists should avoid.[2]
In the absence of the GRI (and by extension the world Adventist leadership) resolving these issues, then presumably it would be open to all Adventists, including any employed SDA science teacher or academic, to pick any model provided it affirmed 6 literal days of creation. And as outlined above, there is more than just one model of 6 literal days of creation.
< http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s9-07>, retrieved 19 Aug 14.
Steve,
I think you are correct that there is no specific SDA model that is a cohesive and comprehensive explanation of creation and origins, although a recent literal six-day creation event seems to be what Elder Wilson has in mind. If he insists that science be taught within these confines, I would expect that to push all sensible and qualified SDA science teachers to go teach elsewhere.
As you know, and many here are aware, such a model simply does not align with massive amounts of evidence. The recent origins concept does not adequately explain the evidence. A science class that states "The SDA church is founded on the belief that God created earth and life as we know it in six literal days" would be honest. To continue to be honest, it would be necessary to add something like "But much of the evidence from geology and biology appears to indicate that the earth and life are much older. We are unable to reconcile these differing perspectives." Then, perhaps, "The content of this course in Biology has a focus on what we can know from the present and recent past, without going into much detail on ultimate causation or origins." And maybe, "In more advanced courses you will learn more about the explanations scientists have proposed regarding natural history, and you are free to read on your own about the entire range of evidence and explanations that are beyond the scope of this course."
Unlike many of my peers, I do not claim that "evolution is a fact." I do claim that evolution is an "explanatary concept" (or a set of explanatary concepts) that is applied to factual evidence in an effort to better understand nature.
In my view, evolutionary concepts should compete openly in the marketplace of ideas and applications with other concepts. And I'm pretty much in agreement with EGHW that "true education" involves helping students become thinkers and not "mere reflectors" of the ideas of others. Do SDA young people need to be protected from "dangerous ideas" by indoctrination in methods of denying or explaining away evidence? Why not take the "high road" by presenting information honestly, along with a range of explanatary concepts?
Paul,
Seems that the fossil nuclear reactor line of reasoning is dependent upon the unproven assumption that decay rates have never ever changed at any point in the past. But that point aside, I wouldn't think Brown would have had any problem with that article since he believes in an old earth and young life. Is 1.7 billion years any problem for someone who believes that life was created about 6000 years ago on a ball that already existed?
Jack,
Is it at all possible that your comments never disappeared, but simply had not yet been approved by a moderator? And thus if you reloaded the page, or closed and reopened oyur browser, the comments would appear to be gone because they had not yet been approved, but were still there all the same?
As far as a name goes, Seventh-day Skeptics or Seventh-day Unbelievers, or even Seventh-day Selective Science Accepters would seem to fit.
Seventh-day Selective Science Accepters might be a very big tent – one that might include people from both ends of the ideological spectrum 8-). It might be more adroit to say Seventh-day Cherry Pickers as that could also incorporate those who cherry-pick from inspired writings as well as from the sciences. Again a very big tent.
While we are at it we could invent some names for other viewpoints also. Seventh-day Exclusivists or Seventh-day Puritans come to mind.
As I have written before, I prefer to view Adventist teachings as a way to draw people in rather than to push people out. God knows who are His own – we do not.
As editor of the Adventist Today print magazine I find all this discussion fascinating. I used to be very black and white. I was raised in a very conservative environment. Now I have come to realize that there is a lot of grey. The Bible does not list doctrines that we must believe. The Bible is very simple: "Believed on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved." End of discussion. We have made the salvation question very complex. I have come to realize the practice of our belief system is what counts. Jesus kept as part of his inner circle, a traitor, a doubter, a zealot, a tax collector, fishermen. If Jesus could accept such diversity why cannot we? I believe in the big tent and what John 13:35 states, by this will everyone know that you are my disciple by how you love one another.
David,
I agree that salvation is simple, but maybe a little differently than how you described it. In light of Hebrews 11, salvation in Noah's day, while certainly rooted in Christ, had to do with believing the divine message through Noah that there would be a flood, believing to the point of getting on the ark regardless of family, friends, job, or ridicule. Similar examples could be cited from Heb. 11 and from Exodus through Numbers. Similarly, the loss of eternal life (being barred from the tree of life) in Gen. 3 had to do with unbelief in God's declaration that eating the fruit would result in death.
So I think that believing on the Lord Jesus can, in some situations, easily come down to believing what He said in Scripture about how look He took to create the world, since the key issue in so many Bible stories and Heb. 11 is faith.
Jesus' inner circle was indeed diverse, but it did not include Caiaphas, or any of the Saduccees. It did not include rich young rulers who were unwilling to surrender all. It didn't even include anyone who had already been a traitor or a known thief. So David, are there any limits to your idea of a big tent? Should the tent be big enough for atheists to be members in good and regular standing? Or would that be going too far?
So Bob,
Just on what basis is anyone not going to be save by a God who declares God's saving love is bigger than the World God created?
"So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief" (Heb. 3:19).
"Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief" (Heb. 4:6).
"Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith" (Rom. 11:20).
"And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again" (Rom. 11:23).
Consider what Jesus declared in John 15:5-6: "If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned."
A lot of people think they are following God just because they're in the church. But they're not producing fruit. They're not growing the Kingdom of God. So Jesus himself declared such people will not be saved. In many churches thats a very large portion of the few people still in the pews.
I think Bob Pickle is correct about salvation being simple. The complexities he adds on? Well, not so much.
Following the advice of Jesus to discard bondage and accept the idea that you are free is pretty much it, I suspect. That is simple. Don't believe you are bound by what you were told about God. Don't believe you are inherently bad. Be free. Live fully.
Salvation is about accepting a Person, not an Idea.
Jim while divorce may be on your horizon from your club (my assessment) how do you apply divorce to the concept of the person of Christ and the idea?
Jim,
Literally, yes, except for the errant capitalization.
Our salvation is about Jesus accepting us, His creation, just as we are and will ever be.
Everything else is an(other) idea, of course.
Picking among ideas will not change the outcome for us, unless it will.
And if it will, then we are the ones effecting our own salvation.
And if that is reality, Lucifer is the first to be saved, and will in time prevail in the war that started in heaven.
Though that last idea is sure to raise questions … It doesn't feel right to me, either.
Our salvation is about Jesus accepting us, His creation, just as we are and will ever be.
Half but only half true. Our salvation certainly depends on Jesus accepting us just as we are.
Our salvation also depends on Jesus loving us too much to be content to leave us just as we are, and ever would be without Divine intervention.
Jesus is not just a kindly old grand-mother who kisses our "owies" and soothes us by saying everything is going to be all right. Jesus knows and says that we need radical surgery in order to ever be all right.
They that are not sick have no need of a physician. We can and too often do choose to decline Divine medical treatment. There is personal a waiver and consent form offered to each sentient creature, to accept or decline reatment.
Lucifer was the first to need but decline treatment. He signed-off his personal waiver a very long time ago.
Shoving wet noodles down wormholes is exactly the same hopeless exercise as the young-earth quest. The location of the hilarious conference to investigate a baby earth proposition is in the center, at St. George, Utah, (located in the Colorado Plateau), of some of the most observable earth layers anywhere. Any fool can look tour Utah and the national parks (Zion, Bryce Canyon and Capital Reef) and can see there is no way those layers are only a few millennium years old.
"Creationists" are on a quest of the impossible dream because of a warped rationality underlying their irrational quest. Their desperation underlies their "truth," that the existence of Adventism on many levels rests on its verification. Acceptance of myth dooms Sabbath keeping and Scriptural inerrancy, the core of Adventist doctrines. As Ussher goes, so goes Adventism. Intellectual reinterpretations (such as Intelligent Design) of Genesis don't successfully modify that fact.
The Scriptures are full of wonderful mythical stories. Their value is destroyed by the realists who want to convert a broad meaning to a specific, impossible, concrete, application. Is there more to reality than what we can see or even know? Probably. Even Paul is reported to have nonspecifically said, "ear hasn't heard nor eye seen what the Son of man has in store." Myth is a way of recognizing we cannot know the unknowable.
[Dear creationist: the survival of your organization, in spite of your hysteria, actually doesn't depend on your success affirming Ussher, since it is not intellect that anchors most believers. There is a multitude of other things that binds followers together. As a brainy example, at least one conservative Church (Assembly of God) is now teaching Darwinism in their Seminary, and it is doing just fine. So, spend your time and money on the experience that God is Love, live life fully, and learn to enjoy the unknowable.]
Shoving wet noodles down wormholes is exactly the same hopeless exercise as the young-earth quest. The location of the hilarious conference to investigate a baby earth proposition is in the center, at St. George, Utah, (located in the Colorado Plateau), of some of the most observable earth layers anywhere. Any fool can look tour Utah and the national parks (Zion, Bryce Canyon and Capital Reef) and can see there is no way those layers are only a few millennium years old.
"Creationists" are on a quest of the impossible dream because of a warped rationality underlying their irrational quest. Their desperation underlies their "truth," that the existence of Adventism on many levels rests on its verification. Acceptance of myth dooms Sabbath keeping and Scriptural inerrancy, the core of Adventist doctrines. As Ussher goes, so goes Adventism. Intellectual reinterpretations (such as Intelligent Design) of Genesis don't successfully modify that fact.
The Scriptures are full of wonderful mythical stories. Their value is destroyed by the realists who want to convert a broad meaning to a specific, impossible, concrete, application. Is there more to reality than what we can see or even know? Probably. Even Paul is reported to have nonspecifically said, "ear hasn't heard nor eye seen what the Son of man has in store." Myth is a way of recognizing we cannot know the unknowable.
[Dear creationist: the survival of your organization, in spite of your hysteria, actually doesn't depend on your success affirming Ussher, since it is not intellect that anchors most believers. There is a multitude of other things that binds followers together. As a brainy example, at least one conservative Church (Assembly of God) is now teaching Darwinism in their Seminary, and it is doing just fine. So, spend your time and money on the experience that God is Love, live life fully, and learn to enjoy the unknowable.]
Jesus loves BUGS!!!!!
Bill,
How could Lucifer be saved if he refuses to believe?
Joe,
How is the simple faith of a child a "complexity"? And if you promote the idea that we should dibelieve what Paul says about us being inherently bad, how can that lead to having saving faith?
Lucifer does believe. The devils believe but they tremble. It is not right beliefs that save us. Othewise the devils would be saved and would have no need to tremble.
See my comments above regarding the waiver and consent form.
Bob,
Of course, I know that you understand that I no longer believe scripture is either inerrant
or factual or the literal word of God. The writers of scripture wrote what they believed
or professed to believe. Some of what they wrote was wise and timely, especially for
the intended audience. Was it intended for people a couple of thousand years later to
hang on every word and argue endlessly about? I don't think so.
I hardly have any reason or basis or intention to "promote" any ideas to adventists. Nothing
I write should be considered as anything more than the expression of an opinion by someone
who used to believe what SDAs profess to believe. In some cases, it is my opinion that you
and others would benefit by considering evidence beyond the edges of your dogmatic views.
I'm suggesting that there was no "fall" into sin, and, thus, no need for "salvation" or "saving faith."
I'm suggesting that Jesus recognized that people had been terribly misled by legalism and
had constructed a very destructive image of God. That God needed to be "reimaged" or
"reimagined." I'm suggesting that the message of Jesus was essentially that. "You are free!
Live joyfully!" That he had to die just to get peoples' attention is quite sad–the ultimate PR stunt.
One can get the sense that Jesus was telling the people of his time not to believe the scripture
and tradition that they relied on–that the invention of a vengeful God was a big lie
that they should reject. That they should, instead, believe in love–that God is love, and that
those who followed his advice would be known by their spirit of love toward each other, as
well as all other people. Yes, universal love. The great heresy of universal love.
Joe,
I don't think your suggestions are supported by the gospel accounts. Jesus flat out said that we have to be born again in order to be saved, which certainly supports the idea that there was a fall. He certainly taught that Adam & Eve were historical figures. He certainly portrayed God as being a God of infinite justice as well as of infinite mercy. Note how many of His parables end with judgment upon the transgressor, such as the house built on sand falling down, or weeping and gnashing of teeth for the fellow cast into darkness. There's lots of examples like that.
Certainly Jesus did correct false understandings about God, but He did not take things to the opposite extreme, as if there is no such thing as divine justice.
Of course, Jesus (and/or His chroniclers) might have been seriously delusional. But then how could He be considered such a great teacher unless those who receive His teachings are also delusional?
This is the fundamental dilemma for humanists who claim to practice the teachings of Jesus while rejecting the claims of Jesus.
Just to clarify, I am not much on labels like "humanist," "Darwinist," "evolutionist," etc.,
although I do admit to being a "scientist" and "primatologist."
I should have written –
This is the fundamental dilemma for those who claim to practice the teachings of Jesus while rejecting the claims of Jesus.
Joe,
I hope you already know that I am not casting aspersions on anyone. I am describing the situation as I see it. You are certainly free to live your life as you find best. That is the best any of us can hope to do.
Unless you properly apply Jesus "claims" to his interest in restoring theocracy.
Very few of the parables of Jesus end up with weeping or gnashing of teeth. Jesus did not come to judge or condemn us but to save us. In Luke the lost sheep, the lost coin and the losts on were all restored and there was great rejoicing.
When we read the Bible (or Ellen) we can choose whether to look up or to look down. To see the mud or to see the stars.
6 references in Matthew to gnashing of teeth sounds like more than a very few of Jesus' parables. Mat. 8:12; 13:42, 50; 22:13; 24:51; 25:30.
You are correct that the parables of Lk. 16 do not include this element.
Bob,
Of course, you will believe what you wish to believe and just discard the rest. If your
belief gives you peace and helps you avoid saying and doing hateful things, why should
I urge that you believe otherwise? Live and be well, my brother.
If you accept the Scriptures as evidence of human search for God, not the Word of God, it makes a lot of sense. My premise is that mankind created God out of need for an explanation for the human condition, Superguy. Seeing the Bible through this filter removes the contortions required to apply it as a factual encyclopedia and removes it as an impossibly convoluted template for structuring life. The limitations of memory based, verbally transmitted concepts, apply to most of the Scriptures and explain the supposed contradictions. As stories are retold, they change. Even witness of events never give identical reports. The alleged coherence of Scripture is a wishful imposition by observers whose agenda is, at all costs, reason be damned, to make it "The Word of God."
Creationists buttressing their hopes by quoting the Bible, in effect, are quoting themselves.
Pickle is correct. A "childlike" view is necessary to purchase the narrative of a divine account of everything in the Scriptures.
The age of the earth is an amusing sidelight. The problem of life is death. Meaning. Most religious writings are an attempt to deal with this Issue. All promote, some kind of understanding and/or plausible (?) solutions. All provide nothing but hope and faith. That is all there is. There is no way to know if some (including Christianity), all, or none are correct. We can't know until we try our own death and see what is over there. If consciousness doesn't transfer, we won't know the difference. Now there's an enigma!
Of course, the faith some people put in the pontifications of infidel scientists is pretty much child-like too. It works both ways.
Bugs Larry, you make a lot of sense when you suggest searching the scriptures for God, rather than yea or nay , as to the "WORD" of GOD. Searching for "SUPERGUY", i believe, allays man's condition and fears on Earth, and provides as you suggest, hope and faith in the future. This provides an excellent remedy of psychological input, and permits the receiver to greet each day with joy and Thannksgiving, rather than moping around in existence hoping you'll be hit by a meteorite, and instant death. So many have no hope and scatter their brains all over for their families to witness.
.
"But it is a fact that those who refuse to believe what God has explicitly stated in His Word are not Seventh-day Adventists in good and regular standing since they are living in opposition to the fundamental belief that says that the Bible is our only rule of faith and practice." –Bob Pickle
Couldn't agree more! Your views, along with Wilson, represent traditional Adventism. I don't understand why the modifiers continue to hang on. Why do they think they have the right to remodel what the church is? I suggest they move on (they aren't going to return to your belief), and either find a church that fits or start their own.
I remember writing the above words, but I don't see where I wrote them. Did they get deleted?
Bob, after I copied this quote from your post I was interrupted for a time, and went back later to reply, and I couldn't locate it either. So I posted it as a general statement. Can't imagine it would be deleted. Compared to some of my statements, none of which have been censored as far as I know, it is pretty tame!
A church is not an abstraction.
I church begins as a community.
A community is defined by those who prefer to be part of the community.
If a community begins to keep people from joining, it has become a club. Almost all spiritual communities become clubs, some sooner rather than later.
In terms of Christians, Jesus has made clear that the distinguishing characteristic of Christians is that against all odds they remain a community.
Atoday proves this true, daily, despite its willingness to make room for the occasional second option.