I appreciate this call for even-handedness in dealing with data, levelheadedness in discussing what we read and say, thoroughness in considering the many facets of La Sierra's ministry and mission, and Christ-likeness in all aspects of our lives.

I graduate from La Sierra's School of Religion in a few weeks and I publicly thank my professors and administrators for providing me and my peers a faith-affirming learning community that tests my hypotheses, that questions my suppositions, and challenges me to kneel at the end of every day before the God of all that I know, and all that I don't know.

I feel that I could not have received a better preparation for ministry in the Seventh-day Adventist Church than I received at La Sierra University.

Thank you, Dr. Geraty, for this article, and thank you La Sierra University for providing me so thorough and transformational an education.

Sincerely.

I have been following these debates regarding the correct interpretation of the Creation narratives for sometime albeit far from the influence of tea parties here in London. I suppose my question is if we don't take the event as happening in a literal six day period where does that leave the Sabbath?

An in depth look at Sabbath from a perspective surprisingly foreign to many Adventists, which may add some clarity to the assumption that without a literal six-day creation, Sabbath collapses: http://www.spectrummagazine.org/node/1693

Thank you Dr. Geraty - I agree wholeheartedly, the mission and ministry of the Adventist Church is alive and well at La Sierra University.

Todd,
I don't mean to distract from this discussion but had to respond to your intransigent hold on an erroneous idea - that there is a literal 24 hour period that is holy somewhere. Did you know the earth is round? Did you know that the Sabbath hours move across the earth and are not the same everywhere at the same time? Did you know that in the extreme northern hemisphere there are times when there is no Sabbath because the sun never sets on Friday or Saturday and SDAs have to make up the time they consider "holy Sabbath hours" on their own?

Did you know that when Moses came down the mountain and initiated Sabbath observance he calculated the time for the weekly cycle for each month by the "new moon" - and, that each month the new moon sets a different weekly cycle? Did you know that therefore, the Sabbath falls on a different "day" every month? Did you know that to "keep" the Sabbath on "Saturday" is to keep it on a day established by the Roman calendar and means about as much as keeping Sunday since Moses didn't have a calendar hanging in his tent by which to calculate those holy 24 hour periods that fall on Saturdays?

Did you know that when you interpret Isaiah telling us that the Sabbath is going to be kept in the "new earth" he is also telling us that the festival of the "new moon" will also be kept? Why are we not keeping the "festival of the new moon" today, since that is what tells us when those holy Sabbath hours are going to be each month?

The reason I'm throwing all this at you like this is to tell you that there is more to the Sabbath, its history, its meaning, and its interpretation than we know; and to cause such a huge upheaval over an issue that is so ambiguous doesn't make sense. It's almost as if our salvation depended on our keeping of the Sabbath. Could that be? Did Jesus say, "Believe in the literal seventh-day Sabbath as calculated by the Roman calendar and be saved"?

http://gycweb.org/resources/video/gyc-2009-creation-segments.html
Any comments on Cliff Goldstein's comments? Bottom video.

Literalism misses the essence and beauty of things and gets caught up in crazy arguments about things on the surface. This speaks to me more than anything I've read. No it's not literally true, but it speaks amazing truth! (I'm not sure where I found it... Thanks to whoever created it - whether in 6 days or not!)

Once upon a time God created three Hebrew poets, whom he named Moses, David and Isaiah.

And God said to the poets, "The world is full of mysteries. But I want you to know that I created you and everything you see around you."
So Moses, David and Isaiah listened carefully as God told them about his creation. Then God explained that in different times, people might understand his creation in different terms.
Then Moses replied, "Who's Democritus?"
And David said, "Who's Ptolemy?"
And Isaiah said, "Who's Newton?"
And Moses said, "Who's Einstein?"
And David said, "What's an atom?"
And Isaiah said, "What's a quark?"
And Moses said, "What's a string?"
And David said, "What's a big bang?"
And Isaiah said, "What's a red-shift?"
And Moses said, "Who's Hubble?"
And David said, "What's a galaxy?"

Then groaning within himself, God said, "Look, I've just explained it to you, the best I can, in clear 21st century English!"
And Moses said, "What's clear?"
And David said, "What's a 21st century?"
And Isaiah said, "What's English?"

Then God said, "OK, let me instead show you a brief movie to give you an idea of what I did." And God called the movie good.
Then Moses said, "Now how many days did that take?"
And David said, "I saw a great tumult."
And Isaiah said, "What's a movie?"

So God said, "Never mind. I just want you to introduce your people to me, so they may know that I made them and I love them. You're all fine Hebrew poets, and I'm asking you to write Hebrew poetry. My Spirit of truth will guide you; but make your work beautiful, and keep it simple."

So Moses wrote, "In the beginning God created both the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was empty, a formless mass cloaked in darkness. And the Spirit of God hovered over its surface. Then God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light."

And David wrote, "By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all their host by the breath of his mouth. He gathered the waters of the sea as in a bottle. For he spoke, and things came to be; he commanded, and they stood firm."

And Isaiah wrote, "Who but God can hold the oceans in his hand? Who else measured off the heavens with his fingers? Who else knows the weight of the earth or has weighed out its mountains and the hills?"

So all the poets did as God asked them. And God saw that their work was good. But a sad look came over God's face.
And Moses said, "Isn't it beautiful?"
And David said, "Isn't it simple?"
And Isaiah said, "Isn't it poetry?"

And God said, "Yes you've all honored me in beautiful Hebrew poetry. And I thank you. But I'm afraid that someday, Christians will fight with each other over what you wrote.
And Moses said, "Haven't we done just as you asked?"
And David said, "What's a Christian?"
And Isaiah said, "Why would anyone fight about beautiful Hebrew poetry?"

And God said, "The world is full of mysteries."

Amen, Tom!

(By the way, I often appreciate your voice of sanity and commitment to doing justice to the minds we have been given by championing of and demonstrating clear thinking. Gabe)

I agree with Doug Kendall.

Geraty offers the same red herring Wisbey did in his first letter, which was responding to Asscherick's letter. Wisbey claimed they weren't teaching atheistic evolution and that LSU was involved in lots of wonderful faith building activities. We can all be thankful that LSU does not promote atheistic evolution and is involved in missions etc.

However, this should not over shadow the undermining of the biblical creation and the church's doctrine. It's a serious problem

I appreciate Geraty's flat out denial of the biblical creation as understood by the Seventh-day Adventist Church. He's honest and unafraid. LSU administration appears to be speaking out of both sides of their mouth. They tell us and the board one thing, and then promote the opposite in the classroom.

Not taking sides Geraty?

If this is the "more" to the LSU story is, he hasn't brought anything new to the table except honesty, which is nice for a change. So the bigger picture is LSU does some good things too, check, and the biblical creation isn't to be taken as it reads, check.

Christ tells us they will know us by our love, not by our commitment to a seven literal historical, consecutive, contiguous 24-hour day week of creation 6,000 years ago ....

Lawrence,

But Ellen wrote that CHRIST will know the Remnant by their commitment to the "seven literal historical, consecutive, contiguous 24-hour day week of creation 6,000 years ago" and their observance of the hallowed rest day of the tired deity.

She was even SHOWN the 10 C's with a special light illuminating the 4th Commandment.

The Remnant have to be willing to lose their jobs, their wife, their family, and even their life in staunch defense of the literal Genesis' seventh day rest period.

More than 99% of other christians honor the day of the alleged creator's Resurrection while SDA's honor the rest day of His Creation.

Be realistic. The Mission Statement of the church is pulled from Revelation and is interpreted by the church (based on what you seem to believe is an unreliable, discredited Prophetess) to mean, contrary to other explicit passages in the NT, that those saved will be seventh day sabbath keepers.

Now, because scientific conclusions make Genesis look exactly like the ridiculous speculations of goat herders that it is, some such as yourself want to ditch the church prophet, ditch source documents compiled into the Bible, join hands with those that the church prophet declared to be in cahoots with Satan in his attempt discredit God and His Sabbath, all the while jumping up and down yelling that you are SEVENTH DAY Adventists.

As an atheist SDA I'm just maybe 1000 years ahead of your position- I have accepted the fact that the whole rest of the Bible is as ridiculous as Genesis if looked at literally. Its great literature, but is full of speculation about a deity whose actions are no more real than Cinderella losing her slipper.

I believe the action of the MC is long overdue, not an action to be shocked to see. If you were honestly shocked and awed by their action it might indicate just how far out of touch with the SDA Church you guys are out on the Left Coast.

Thank you, Dr. Geraty! Well said!!

There is a "happy fiction" that to reprove error is to be "divisive" or "less than loving".

Christ firmly reproved error in Matt 23.

Paul firmly reproved error in 1Cor 5

And though Geraty imagines that neither Genesis 1-2:3 nor the Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 - are written well enough to support God's summary of Genesis 1 ( given in Ex 20:8-11 stating that the creation of all life on earth takes place in 6 literal days), and though he apparently promoted that fiction while at LSU, the burden of proof rests with those who argue against the straightforward exegetically sound rendering of the text - as apparently Geraty would perfer to do.

As for remaining neutral on this point -

"If God abhors one sin above another, of which His people are guilty, it is doing nothing in case of an emergency. Indifference and neutrality in a religious crisis is regarded of God as a grievous crime and equal to the very worst type of hostility against God." {3T 280.3}

“I have been shown that the most signal victories and the most fearful defeats have been on the turn of minutes. God requires promptness of action. Delays, doubtings, hesitation, and indecision frequently give the enemy every advantage. My brother, you need to reform. The timing of things may tell much in favor of truth. Victories are frequently lost through delays. There will be crises in this cause. Prompt and decisive action at the right time will gain glorious triumphs, while delay and neglect will result in great failures and positive dishonor to God. Rapid movements at the critical moment often disarm the enemy, and he is disappointed and vanquished, for he had expected time to lay plans and work by artifice.”
{3T 497.4}

Shake off your spiritual lethargy. Work with all your might to save your own souls and the souls of others. It is no time now to cry, "Peace and safety." It is not silver-tongued orators that are needed to give this message. The truth in all its pointed severity must be spoken. Men of action are needed --men who will labor with earnest, ceaseless energy for the purifying of the church and the warning of the world. {5T 187.3}

A great work is to be accomplished; broader plans must be laid; a voice must go forth to arouse the nations. Men whose faith is weak and wavering are not the ones to carry forward the work at this important crisis. We need the courage of heroes and the faith of martyrs. {5T 187.4}

As for the idea that taking action to turn away rebellion is "less than kind" -

"They dared not tolerate errors fatal to their own souls, and set an example which would imperil the faith of their children and children's children. To secure peace and unity they were ready to make any concession consistent with fidelity to God; but they felt that even peace would be too dearly purchased at the sacrifice of principle. If unity could be secured only by the compromise of truth and righteousness, then let there be difference...

Well would it be for the church and the world if the principles that actuated those steadfast souls were revived in the hearts of God's professed people." GC 45, 46.

in Christ,

Bob

Once again, their real agenda becomes clear. . .

"The apostates in Southern California need to be expelled from the church before they cause more damage to our young people."

Expelled from the church. That's the real message here for many.

P.S. I also believe that a person holding a position of trust within the Church should be held to a higher standard of ethics and faith not as related to membership but to stewardship of the Church's belief system. One's honor should mean more than a life of sham or challenge. Tom

Tom,

I find it highly ironic that you would cite the parable of wheat and tares to illustrate that some people should be "out." Even if we were to (falsely) apply that parable to this ongoing intra-church discussion (I say falsely, because the parable clearly had a different context in mind), the unmistakable message is DO NOT PULL UP ANYTHING, BECAUSE THE RESULT WILL BE WORSE FOR EVERYONE if you do.

I apologize for shouting, but this clear scriptural truth seems to have sailed over so many heads that I'm slightly exasperated.

Jack Hoehn said "It is the Truth that has forced them to challenge the unsupportable teaching of a recent young earth. There is no desire to do anything except make Adventism true. They are unwilling to accept ancient misunderstandings or unsubstantiated conclusions as a substitute for present Truth."

As much as I differ with Jack's point of view - it does provide an opportunity for some agreement.

1. We seem to agree that the LSU agenda for preaching evolutionism in both it's religion and biology departments - as being the right answer for the doctrine on origins -- is in fact an attempt to change our doctrines - and to make them something that an evolutionist might actually agree with.

Well both sides do agree that the experiment is a transparently obvious attempt to change our doctrines on origins.

2. From your "ancient misunderstanding" idea - you seem to also admit to another area of agreement between proponents of both sides of this quetion - and that agreement is on the fact that "Moses was no darwinist". Genesis is not a way to frame "Darwinism" anything like it.

Neither is the Ex 20:8-11 summary statement on Genesis 1:2-2:3 a common darwinian formula to express evolutionist concepts (Notice that the literal 7 dat creation week is summarized in the form of legal code in Ex 20 - not merely poetry).

Thus for all of the differences - there are points of clear agreement.

in Christ,

Bob

Tom,

Thanks for clarifying. To you I now say AMEN.

I find it interesting that some believe it impossible to support smaller government and lower taxes through the Tea Party Movement (of which only a small number are actually "radical right-wingers") and affirm La Sierra University in its efforts to educate thinkers instead of clones.

I respect Dr. Geraty and his work in both archaeology and higher education. He has set the bar high for those who follow him. I would like to state for the record that being politically conservative does not preclude one from being open-minded in religious and spiritual matters.

I hope my whole-hearted support for LSU and applause for Dr. Geraty's candor is not deemed any less valuable simply because some disagree with me on unrelated political matters.

There is no doubt in my mind that LSU is a great school that has led many to Christ. I'm sure that most of the teachers are wonderful Christians and follow the Bible but just as a little poison can make good water undrinkable so can a little error allowed to continue make LSU unfit for our students.

"I believe the tea party movement and radical right-wing politics is affecting our beloved church, not only in belief but in tactics that have no place among Christians" You know I literally hate politics, why was this even brought up? I gotta say though Mr. Geraty, your fascist colors are showing.

@Keafan "As an atheist SDA..." HAHA! Sir, you are one gigantic breathing oxymoron.

@Keafan "As an atheist SDA..." HAHA! Sir, you are one gigantic breathing oxymoron.

There is not much difference between being an SDA and being a Jew. Hence, as one born into the SDA cult- uh, tribe- I consider myself an atheist SDA similar to an atheist Jew.

tSDA = Orthodox Judaism

California SDA = Reform Judaism (or Progressive Judaism and some locations also Liberal Judaism)

Cultural SDA = non practicing Jew

atheist SDA = atheist Jew

BTW, this is not twitter so there is no need to waste a keystroke with that service's designation.

LSU teaches direct contradiction to one of the SDA church's fundamental doctrines and Michigan Confrence gets called divisive for standing up for the church??? Excuse me if I am wrong, but it seems that the one teaching against the church belief is the one that is divisive.

If someone doesn't want to embrace one of our fundamental beliefs... fine. Just don't try to call yourself a SDA. It's no different than if I didn't believe the seventh day was the Sabbath and still called myself a SDA. If you believe what the church teaches, then join. If you don't believe what the church teaches, then go somewhere else, but don't rag on those who stand up for what the church teaches.

As I read the different Adventist discussion pages (not just this one), and observe out in the real world too, I get the sense that SDAs are highly focussed on having the "right beliefs" and quite argumentative with those who don't. Not necessarily in a conflictual way, although that happens plenty of times, but more in the need to convince the other of their rightness (which actually supposedly aligns with God's way of seeing things! - that's hilarious, yet stand back and watch and that's often the attitude.)



The other thing SDAs are often highly focussed on is "right behavior". It often comes down to the person's often strict rules on what is ok to do or not do when it comes to diet, clothing, entertainment, church, roles of women ... From watching this I am concerned that the majority of it is very much focussed on the self. or regarding church it is focussed inward on church behaviour.

It's time to challenge this.



Tony Campolo once told a conservative Christian College student body that "20,000 children died today of preventable illnesses and lack of food. Most of you don't give a shit about this, and most of you are probably more upset that I said "shit" in church than you are about the 20,000 children dying each day. Today I want to talk to you about your values...”



In the Scriptures it is said that "true religion is about caring for the fatherless and the widows." Of course it is more than about caring for those specific groups, but the point is made. I'm tired of all the behavioral control and focussing on a bunch of roles (or even principles, which are usually thinly disguised ways of making and justifying rules). The biblical literalists and non-literalists both often get caught up in the game, just varying the parameters and making more or less room for certain things. In this the whole spirit of Jesus gets forgotten.



In Matthew, Jesus told a story about the end of time where the supposedly believing righteous aren't recognised by God at the second coming, yet the unbelievers are. A slap in the face. Go read it and see where you fit. I'll look at where i fit. It's not about a righteousness by works. It's a slap in the face to religion that is self focussed and religions caught up more in their games than being so infected with the spirit of Jesus that it flows out in a transformative way to "the least of these" as well as everyone else.



Theology and doctrines are the attempt by humans to put into language the experience of the Divine. To explain it. To be able to talk to others about it. Unfortunately, forever afterwards people argue about the words. Yet it's not about the words.

I'm not against the intellectual discussions. They sharpen our minds, and I get to have a laugh and a stir as well. 



But nothing fills my soul or connects me with Jesus more than when I'm downtown in the city, sitting on a sidewalk with a homeless person. Not just walking by or giving a dollar, or trying to judge their circumstances or if they are deserving or not. But talking their order and getting them a real meal, being their waiter. Listening to their stories. connecting with their soul. Being challenged by the limits of my generosity and resources. My soul is filled and I'm also left unsettled. In this, and other activities of similar kind (coz I'm not promoting any particular activity), I am more connected with the spirit of Jesus than in holy huddles and intellectual arguments (however much i may enjoy them from time to time).



Jesus was the end of the old way of doing religion, but a religion was made about him. If he was here in the flesh today he wouldn't recognise it and would challenge us all, rock us to the core, and probably be crucified in a modern time way by the defenders of the faith and the status quo. The spirit of Jesus that I know both comforts me and is in my face everyday - not in doctrinal points or adventist behavior codes - but in challenging the core of my being, breaking my heart open, healing and renewing me, keeping me unsettled with no easy answers...

Posted by: Richard Sherwin
"When I send my kids to a school that is a arm of my church I expect sound theology that is in accord with scripture."

Ah, that would be nice! Unfortunately,the reality is that institutions are full of human beings who have varied backgrounds and differing opinions of scripture. In a multicultural world, where God allows even the tiny snowflake to have its own individuality, there is simply no one size fits all theology because we all bring our own baggage even into our beliefs about God. Because we cannot assume that even our own SDA teachers are immune to deception, the best method to preserve your children is to teach them to think for themselves no matter what church or school they are attending.

Posted by: Richard Sherwin
"I don't think Christ would have tolerated the freedom to teach error. While I disagree with some of the conservative rational that the Mi. Conf uses, in this I have to back them. They have seen error being taught and took a stand the only way they had left to them."

Well actually, Jesus did NOT control the church in His day-- as a matter of fact, He even allowed those who did not think like He did to actually murder Him. Jesus is the perfect example of how God uses His power and how we as His followers should use ours. Paul reflected this when he said that each should be persuaded in his own mind. This move by the Michigan conference is a political stunt to control a University that is not even in their conference or under their juridiction. It is like a brother threatening not to do the dishes unless dad punishes his sister because he does not agree with her.

I'm sorry, I see the move by the Michigan conference as childish and silly. It fits under the topic of busy bodying under the goal of self-righteousness. Don't we all feel more superior when we can prove someone wrong and force them to behave the way we want?

Jesus was meek. Where are His followers?

Forget science class: people need to take a church history class...

There needs to be some education on what the fundamental beliefs are really about...they are not PRESCRIPTIVE (as in a creed) but are DESCRIPTIVE. The list reflects the commonalities that bind us as a church--it is not meant as a measuring rod or test of fellowship.

Many people in the early Adventist church vehemently resisted "codifying" beliefs because of the dangers of divisiveness AND the propensity of people to resist change. If the pioneers had been resistent, we would've never come to our current understandings regarding Sabbath, the Trinity, or a host of other things. (For that matter--going further back--we'd all be paying indulgences & going to confession because the Reformation wouldn't have happened!)

Today people have done EXACTLY what founders were fearful of; including but not limited to: making belief in Ellen White's prophetic gift a test of fellowship (which she REPEATEDLY and EXPLICITLY warned against) and using the list of beliefs in a way to proclaim that others are heretical.

I believe in a literal Creation week. But I also know there are committed Adventist Christians that believe otherwise. And the Hebrew makes room for some of those interpretations. That's why belief #6 is INTENTIONALLY written (by scholarship and leadership) in a manner that makes room for varying ideas. People who have been taught that THEIR interpretation is the ONLY interpretation were misinformed. You can't say that people are teaching against the fundamental beliefs just because they're teaching something different than YOUR take on the fundamental beliefs. Your interpretation is ALSO an interpretation. The people who wrote the last codification of the list aren't even dead! You can ask them EXACTLY why they wrote what they wrote. And unashamedly, you will be told that it is in an effort to be inclusive of the array of beliefs held by Adventists: DESCRIPTIVE not PRESCRIPTIVE.

Now, if people who support only one way of viewing Creation are insistent on asking the GC to include ONLY that perspective, then you need to be honest about the fact that you are essentially asking for a CHANGE belief in #6. Don't be disingenuous by stating that you are merely upholding the current belief as it is written.

Elaine,

I very often agree with your comments so thank you for the agreement! : )

The question we should be addressing as a church should not be power over each other, but how can we as the body of Christ keep from amputating each other when we adamantly disagree?

Cherilyn

An excellent suggestiont that all SDA students be required to study "Church History" not limited to the recent SDA history, but the beginning of formulating church doctrines, many of which are held by SDAs. When there is study in this area, it will be readily seen that there were many fierce battles from the very beginning, seen in the NT, and continuing since then, and as in all history, the victors wrote and established what should be church doctrines by a majority of votes, nothing else. This seems to be the method decided by the SDA church today: a small group of administrators (not theologians) decide what will be the Fundamental beliefs and what are eliminated. As in all such discussions: the majority rules. For most decisions this is the only method, but to expect "truth" to be decided by a majority of committee members should be suspect.

Christ's love is not a robe for doctrinal error.

Geraty says he is against "a seven literal historical, consecutive, contiguous 24-hour day week of creation 6,000 years ago which is NOT in Genesis no matter how much the fundamentalist wing of the church would like to see it there."

Then, he adds: "I wholeheartedly affirm Scripture, but NOT the extra-Biblical interpretation of the Michigan Conference."

The reality is that the "Michigan Conference" did NOT add this so-called "extra-Biblical interpretation." To clarify, point number 4 of the MCEC vote states:

"We request that the 2010 General Conference session vote a resolution affirming number 3 above, with the direction of bringing to the following GC session a statement that would serve to strengthen our fundamental belief number six. Hence, our Creation doctrine would clearly articulate our biblical view of 'a literal, recent, six-day Creation,' in which 'the seven days of the Creation account were literal 24-hour days forming a week identical in time to what we now experience as a week,' as the statement affirmed by the General Conference Executive Committee in October 2004 noted."

[Emphasis note: "as the statement affirmed by the GC Executive Committee in Oct 2004!!"]

(1) Geraty has unfortunately misrepresented the facts. Nowhere did the Michigan Conference even suggest "6,000 years ago."

(2) The MCEC statement was directly quoting the General Conference Executive Committee's October 2004 statement, of "a literal, recent, six-day Creation," in which "the seven days of the Creation account were literal 24-hour days forming a week identical in time to what we now experience as a week." This is basically what the MCEC is asking the 2010 GC to take up. Yet, by ignoring this fact, Geraty seems to be falsely alleging that Michigan Conference is promoting "extra-Biblical interpretation". What Geraty is really doing, is essentially claiming that the GC Executive Committee is promoting "extra-Biblical interpretation."

(3) In part, Fundamental Belief number 6 states: "In six days the Lord made 'the heavens and the earth' and all living things upon the earth and rested on the seventh day of that week. Thus He established the Sabbath as a perpetual memorial of His completed creative work."

Geraty asserts: "Fundamental Belief No. 6 uses Biblical language to which we can all agree; once you start interpreting it according to anyone's preference you begin to cut out members who have a different interpretation. I wholeheartedly affirm Scripture."

Notice what President Jan Paulsen states in his June 9, 2009 article in the Adventist Review: "Our position as a church in the matter of origins is clearly although somewhat broadly stated in our Fundamental Beliefs. This position is further amplified in a statement voted by the General Conference Executive Committee at the 2004 Annual Council [responding to 'An Affirmation of Creation,' submitted by the International Faith & Science Conferences]. To remind ourselves of the details of that action, I have included the wording in this appeal: 'We strongly endorse the document's affirmation of our historic, biblical position of belief in a literal, recent, six-day Creation. We urge that the document, accompanied by this response, be disseminated widely throughout the world Seventh-day Adventist Church, using all available communication channels and in the major languages of World membership. We affirm the Seventh-day Advenitst understanding of the historicity of Genesis 1-11: that the seven days of the Creation account were literal 24-hour days forming a week identical in time to what we now experience as a week; and that the Flood was global in nature. We call on all boards and educators at Seventh-day Adventist institutions at all levels to continue upholding and advocating the church's position on origins...."

In a nutshell, Geraty is actually implying that the GC’s statement is tantamount to interpreting Fundamental Belief #6 "according to anyone's preference."

(4) Thus, it appears that Geraty is really suggesting that the GC Executive Committee is "the fundamentalist wing of the church," since it is simply their statement that the MCEC is really calling for inclusion in the current belief number 6.

(5) Also, it seems that Geraty is basically charging the GC Executive Committee with beginning "to cut out members who have a different interpretation."

(6) Ultimately then, it looks like Geraty is accusing the GC Executive Committee of being one of the "forces at work that are disrupting the unity of the church."

Norm, I'm not going to give you a Hebrew lesson right now, but there are other ways to look at it other than the one you have. I'd love to sit down with you and present the other ideas and then give you the time and space to evaluate all the perspectives and allow you to formulate your own decision. You could ask questions and then make a well informed conclusion (maybe even the same conclusion you already have--or maybe not). I presume you're an intelligent adult, so you'd be able to handle that, right?

In fact, there should be a class like that! Perhaps at an educational facility: a college or university...

Oh wait...

Since the average age of SDA membership is 51, it would be wise not to infer that all the 28 Fundamentals were in place at the time of their baptism.

"Average" age would indicate that half are older than 51, and many of those were baptized long before any "Fundamentals" were adopted.
Why should they be made to accept those when they were not even mentioned in their baptismal vows (mine weren't)?

Why such a fuss over the various interpretations? Especially when there are TWO, 2, distinct and separate Creation stories that are very different in many respects. If a member elects to believe the older version (Gen. 2) why should she be forced to accept the propositional statements voted by a committee long after she was baptized? Fugeddabout it. "Ain't gonna happen."

If Jesus were here today watching these people talk about the "fundamental beliefs of the church," and the official doctrines, he would go and tear apart these human-made documents, including the 28 fundamental beliefs, and say, "A new commandment I give unto you, that you love one another."

Read the scripture. Did Jesus came 2000 years ago to congratulate some synagogues, and ban a those that were not keeping the official doctrines? If Jesus returns tomorrow, would he congratulate Michigan, and ban La Sierra University? I don't think so!

I am not a Christian. But I graduated from La Sierra. It is the most loving place on Earth, as far as I am concerned. It is the only representation that I have about Jesus. Leave La Sierra do its work! I know more about Jesus because of the work of La Sierra, than because of these people talking about doctrines and official beliefs.

===========================================
C. Ray said:
"There needs to be some education on what the fundamental beliefs are really about...they are not PRESCRIPTIVE (as in a creed) but are DESCRIPTIVE. The list reflects the commonalities that bind us as a church--it is not meant as a measuring rod or test of fellowship"
---------------------------------------------

To C.Ray -

That is where a little quality time spent in church history would have served your argument a bit better. Turns out there was a wild-wild-west time in the 1800's in our church where we had nothing by way of a clear statement of beliefs to differentiate some zaney evangelists (evangelizing for evolutionism -- let's say - for the sake of updating the example to the 21st century) from the real authentic Adventist church and yet all of these "claimed" to be Adventists. The result was chaos and confusion - and no chance of advancing.

Here is an example of a comment from someone in the early days of this church that was paying attention to the fact that we have a set of belief that are more than mere "postscript notes" and "scratchpad observations".

=================================================
"When the power of God testifies as to what is truth, that truth is to stand forever as the truth. No aftersuppositions, contrary to the light God has given, are to be entertained. Men will arise with interpretations of Scripture which are to them truth, but which are not truth. The truth for this time, God has given us as a foundation for our faith. He Himself has taught us what is truth. One will arise, and still another, with new light which contradicts the light that God has given under the demonstration of His Holy Spirit…

[Satan] knows that if he can deceive the people who claim to believe present truth, and make them believe that the work the Lord designs for them to do for His people is a removing of the old landmarks, something which they should, with most determined zeal, resist, then he exults over the deception he has led them to believe…

We are not to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith. They gather together a mass of Scripture, and pile it as proof around their asserted theories. This has been done over and over again during the past fifty years. And while the Scriptures are God’s word, and are to be respected, the application of them, if such application moves one pillar from the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake. He who makes such an application knows not the wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God."
— Preach the Word, p. 5. (1905); Counsels to Writers and Editors, p. 31-32. (1946)
------------------------------------------------

A PLEA FOR A COMMUNITY OF VARIETY AND TOLERANCE, NOT MORE EXCLUSIVISM AND SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS

I am probably the only poster here who has never been to La Sierra, either as a student, a visitor, or invited speaker. However, the debate within the SDA community about the viability of La Sierra as an Adventist institution seems to be completely wrong-headed. As a teacher for several years in a truly "liberal"institution , it is laughable for me to think anyone would consider of La Sierra as anything but a moderate or even conservative evangelical institution. It seems some of the fundamentalists in the SDA church want to consider the church's teachings like a creed, something everyone should submit to or leave.

Statements of belief are always launching pads, temporary consensii, hypotheses for further reflection, and an AVERAGE of the views of the membership, not exhaustive or critical explications of disputed theological issues. If I may continue the statistical analogy, we must always expect----and indeed hope for... at least one standard deviation on either side of the mean in personal views, if such Statements are to be truly reflective of our church family. We should fellowship and dialogue with everyone "under the bell," especially those whose ideas seem challenging to us.

I know we live in an uncertain world, where change is upon us almost every day. I understand that many people need something they feel is unshakeable, unmovable, and incontestable. They look to their pastor, their church, their doctrines, and the Statement of Beliefs for an unchanging guide in a world of uncertainty. They are afraid to simply trust God. So they turn their beliefs into idols and their beliefs into creeds, giving them the absolute value that due only to God.

If, after all this time and reflection on God's creativity and goodness, we cannot trust God and let everything else be imperfect, we haven't got very far. A new theology of a God who demands perfect and precise ideas has arisen and threatens to take away the freedom of the Gospel. Heaven help us!

Graeme

We, the Seventh-day Adventists, are the remnant church. We keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus. We believe in the six literal days of creation. We are the bright shining star in this terribly dark world. When the time of trouble comes, the whole world will see that God is love because of our witness. Look no further than Rwanda. Or America.

Graeme,

You're thoughts are insightful and wise.

Perhaps I could be part of a church that worships the God you describe, and has the flexibility and openess of thinking you call for. I'm more into going onto the exciting adventure of living life fully, embracing the mysteries of the Divine, using the mind that has been given me in dialogue with others.

Thanks for your voice of sanity.

I'm not sure why there is so much shock and awe over this. On the one hand you have arguably the most liberal SDA university with a department of professors openly questioning a foundational tenet of the church and its prophet. On the other hand you have arguably the most conservative conference in the nation doing what it sees fit to safeguard its members from attacks on its prophet. If Ellen White said that the creation week was six literal days and she could have been wrong then you have to ask what else she was wrong about. What else did God show her that was in error? I believe this is why MI is doing what they are doing.

This is not unprecedented, BTW. Remember what happened at Southern College and Glacier View in the 1980's? History repeats itself.

Is this the twitches of death of adventism, or growing pains to a renewed adventism? only time will tell.

a retreat into dark ages does no one any good. not even those who crave the certainty of the supposed old ways. adventism faces death by irrelevancy while thinking it's god's gift to the contemporary world.

Dr. Geraty: "Christ tells us they will know us by our love, not by our commitment to a seven literal historical, consecutive, contiguous 24-hour day week of creation 6,000 years ago which is NOT in Genesis no matter how much the fundamentalist wing of the church would like to see it there."

Uh, I don't know how to say this, or to break it to you, but Dr. Geraty, as far as what I think you're trying to do in promoting the idea that LSU isn't so far off and is well within the center of Adventist beliefs, this is, well, not helpful.

Thanks Graeme! I copied that to review and consider. It seems that the Spectrum Forums are simply a microcosm of the church as a whole and we run into the same simple minded fallacies and mud slinging that we do in some of our churches. Perhaps we all would do well to educate ourselves in how to argue our points honestly and fairly and in so doing we might actually win more people over to the "truth" that we each believe in. God bless!

For a refreshing look at the current state of science-based rational thinking regarding the topic of creation v. evolution, see this series of posts by one of the leading thinkers in this area, Steven Novella: http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?cat=7

truth seekers

Truth seekers stand on the horizon looking outward and upward whereas truth protectors stand on the brink of the abyss looking downward in fear and trembling. Some stand round the base of the mountain(ie Sinai)in fear of being shot through with an arrow or stoned while others come boldly before the throne of grace so they can be helped in their time of need Hebrew 4:16.

Fear paralyzes the mind, robs us of health and joy, makes us emotionally unstable, stops our growth and investigation. Fear is based on ignorance. knowledge is power to overcome fear. Life is an expereince and a journey. The joy is in the journey. Let the journey go on without the neurotic fear produced by ignorance. Question all and learn from the quest.

God/Jesus has promised to Convict(forensic veiw/convince relationship veiw) the WORLD of "sin and of rigtheousness". Can we trust HIM to do that. That is what the great controversy is all about. It does involve his creatures salvation but at the same time it must result in a people who can think and decide to "do what is right because it is the right thing to do" and that is what will make Gods universe a safe and secure place. Robots can never choose freely! God did not creat robots and he will never turn us into robots.

Eternal Life is to know God! This knowledge could never be acquired without going through this life experience. Birth & Rebirth requires a STRUGGLE. It is what makes us strong.

Posted by: Jay Rasco (not verified) | 29 May 2010 at 2:33

George was Christ an elitist?

I wonder how many Michigan Conference employees, or their kids, are attending LSU currently. I wonder if this is financially significant, or if it's really a symbolic statement.

Geraty is correct in noting that salvation is not based on knowledge of the truth, but on a Love of the truth (thank God). However, a solid hope in the “good news” of the Gospel is indeed based on knowledge. Sure, even though the heathen who have never heard of Jesus or the Gospel message can be saved according to the Royal Law of Love, they will have missed out on an opportunity to have a better and more hopeful and fulfilled life here and now.

The SDA Church is all about spreading this hopeful Gospel message to those who are struggling in this life – to give some solid encouragement and a reality of a bright literal future in store for us all.

Part of this Gospel message involves highlighting the Creative Power of God in His original creation of our world. This evident Creative Power is also used as a basis for God’s ability and promise to recreate this planet back to its original idealic state once this Great Controversy comes to an end – without having to wait for millions and billions of years for the very painful mechanism of “survival of the fittest” to do the job…

Dr. Geraty forgets that the founding fathers and mothers of this SDA Church were very much believers in and supporters of a literal creation week – in the face of strong Darwinist teachings of the day. Mrs. White in particular wrote very strongly against the Darwinian notions of the need for millions of years of evolutionary progress on this planet. She claimed that she was shown in vision that the creation week described in the Genesis account was like any other week we know today. She even wrote an entire chapter in Patriarchs and Prophets entitled, “The Literal Week” in which she carefully explains the reality and importance of the literal creation week.

In short, I thank Dr. Geraty for his honesty and forthrightness regarding his views on this issue. It helps to clarify positions. However, it also helps to clarify the reason why LSU is in the state that it is in – in open rebellion against the clearly stated position of the SDA Church, as a body, on this foundational pillar of the SDA faith.

This decided long-standing rebellion against the Church must be addressed in an equally decided manner – and soon. This has been going on far too long, several decades now, to be ignored any longer. What do we, as the SDA Church, really stand for as “fundamental”? What do we really want to teach our own children in our own schools as “the present truth” for our day?

Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com

The above posts--on either side of the issues involved--are good examples of why we need tolerance and latitude in our teachings and publication.

There is sufficient variation among literalist creationists to make absolute uniformity in biblical and theological interpretation among them an impossibility. But they are attempting to preserve the foundations of the Christian message, which they see as logically rooted in the cosmological beliefs of Genesis. This motive is commendable and should be approved by moderates and liberals who may not subscribe to the foundationalism in the position.

Similarly, it is easy to point out that liberals will never agree on details because they allow much more latitude and don't think agreement on details is important anyway. They are usually attempting to preserve the credibility of the Christian message in a scientifically sensitive culture. This motive or interest is also commendable and should be approved by moderates and conservatives who may not subscribe to the liberal assumptions about the intellectual integrity of the Christian faith.

All this attacking, controlling, boycotting, and threatening does not give us better exegesis of the text, better theology, or improve the reputation of the Gospel in the world. It is borne out of fear, not love or logic.

Let's abandon all this idolatry of human constructions and admit we don't have all the answers...or even all the best questions!

If only one interpretation is permissible, then whose? If only one understanding of Genesis can officially stand for SDAs. then whose would that be?

Dear Lawrence,

You should be ashamed of yourself for calling people who care for the church tea party activist and right wingers. Your insult is insidious and ill mannered. You are calling for an level headed conversation and then you turn around and label people who have a different viewpoint.

Shame on you!!!!

PS. Its a good think you are retired!

Charles

"It has become obvious to me that the church is already divided."

Yes, there are many points of differences. Certainly the teaching of "Common Ancestor" evolution vs Special Creation is a major fault line. Perhaps the literal division of the SDA Church is inevitable and the Michigan Conference decision is one of the first major signs of the inevitable breakup of the denomination. But, there seems to be a better way than such a breakup, e.g. talking together, praying together, striving together for the success of the cause.

Recall the difference between Paul and Peter. Paul withstood Peter to his face and Peter admitted that Paul said some things that were misunderstood. Both were Spirit-led. I don't recall any example where money was withheld over differences.

There is a much more tragic example of division in the Hebrew Bible when the North and South separated into two distinct nations. Perhaps Adventism is bound for such a breakup. We have not tried very hard, yet, to save the denomination.

The Michigan Conference has taken a shallow, preemptive action rather than leading in serious "withstanding to one's face". It seems to be the nature of administration to not admit serious problems until they are obvious. The Michigan Conference's action can serve as a wake up call to all concerned. An example of how not to solve a major problem but an acknowledgement of a major problem, nonetheless.

The myth that keeps surfacing is that Adventists in the 1800's did not have a set of beliefs that define Adventism.

The truth is that this was a doomed position that the Adventist church quickly left behind by the mid 1800's and for good reason. The prior view had resulted in total chaos and threatened to terminate the growth of the early Adventist church.

in Christ,

Bob

"Recall the difference between Paul and Peter. Paul withstood Peter to his face and Peter admitted that Paul said some things that were misunderstood. Both were Spirit-led. I don't recall any example where money was withheld over differences.

Paul even asked the other churches to send fund to those in Jerusalem who were in poorer states. So, rather than withholding funds, as Michigan is doing, he asked for offerings to aid them!

Norm said, "Even if Geraty is right in his way of thinking, he belongs to an organization that publicly states their beliefs otherwise. Even if the SDA church is 100% WRONG about creation, to teach against that belief is undermining the organization. A person trying to undermine the church is not someone I want educating my youth."

So do you mean that, even though Jesus was correct, you would not have wanted him to educate your children because it undermined the established traditions and teachings of the Jewish leaders at the time?

Amazing...

SEAN PITMAN why do you suppose God allowed the great controversy to happen if it was not so we HIS creatures could see both sides of the issues in the life and Death struggle.

By the way our salvation is based on TRUSTING HIM and that trust is based on knowing HIM. John 17:3 Eternal life is TO KNOW GOD and that is why he allowed us to go through this life expereince to get to know HIM and to TRUST him to do all he said HE will do. Paul's Prayer in Ephesian is "I keep asking that the god of our lord Jesus Christ will give you the spirit of wisdom and revealtion so that you may know HIM Better.

The ultimate question is DO YOU/WE Trust him to complete the work he has started.

LET the search continue. Are we truth seekers or truth protectors?

Jay

BobRyan Said:

"The myth that keeps surfacing is that Adventists in the 1800's did not have a set of beliefs that define Adventism."

(See the bottom of this post for details)

Don said:

"The set of beliefs became more and more defined as the organization progressed through time and became larger in membership. By the late 1850's and early 1860's, the church identified the Third Angel's message as "here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus."

The gatherings of the late 1840's, commonly called the Sabbath conferences, provided opportunity for James and Ellen White, Joseph Bates and others to present their Scriptural understandings to the Adventists.

How did they solve their differences in these meetings? It was not by withholding Christian fellowship, as the Michigan Conference has done. It was by praying together, all night if needed."

end quote.
=============================================
My response -

1. The issue as stated by the Michigan Exec Comm is not to "Withhold Christian fellowship" - rather it is "not to fund apostasy". It is one thing to say that we will allow church attendance for so-and-so, it is quite another to say we will fund so-and-so's efforts to evangelize for evolutionism. Equivocation is not an objective solution.

2. Notice the reference to the Fundamental Beliefs of our faith - established in the Sabbath Conferences and in subsequent study

------------------
Begin Quote of CWE document

"We are not to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith. They gather together a mass of Scripture, and pile it as proof around their asserted theories. This has been done over and over again during the past fifty years. And while the Scriptures are God’s word, and are to be respected, bthe application of them, if such application moves one pillar from the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake. He who makes such an application knows not the wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God.
— E. White, Preach the Word, p. 5. (1905); Counsels to Writers and Editors, p. 31-32. (1946)
---------------------------------------

Thus the concept of a list of foundational fundamental beliefs that are not to be torn down - is affirmed by one of the church's earliest leaders.

in Christ,

Bob

"The issue as stated by the Michigan Exec Comm is not to "Withhold Christian fellowship" - rather it is "not to fund apostasy". It is one thing to say that we will allow church attendance for so-and-so, it is quite another to say we will fund so-and-so's efforts to evangelize for evolutionism. Equivocation is not an objective solution."

One institution of the church has decided to not fellowship with another institution of the church, re: finance. (This much is clear to me.) It is an unBiblical approach and can only bring the work of God's church into further confusion.

Where in the Adventist Church history does one part of the body cut off support for another part of the body?

Who in the Michigan Conference has gone through the Matthew 18 protocol with those at La Sierra?

Let's open up the flood gates of such activity and watch the cause of God suffer.

Go Dr. Geraty!

History of literal interpretation of Genesis/Bible - Conor Cunningham science philosopher and theologian - program title: "Did Darwin Kill God?" - BBC

Up until the 16C, Genesis/Bible was understood to be on two levels - literal story and allegory, the allegorical aspect giving the actual meaning; and the literal being an "impoverished" account with little or no theological reflection. Augustine warns against taking Genesis literally because it diminishes deeper aspects of the Biblical message, making God simply a SUPER MAN, rather than the creator of time and space and everything they contain.

Literal interpretation of Genesis came first to Britain on the wings of Usher's book where he calculated the earth to be 6,000 years old. This calculation made it into the King James Bible and was immovable TRUTH by a faction within the church during the 19th C. It was further trumpeted in the early 60's when the "Bible belt" got frustrated with the "moral decay" in the younger generation, and a book came out called "The Genesis Flood". The call went out to "return to the literal "Word of the Bible".

I doubt many on this site have ever read or even seen the "Origin of the Species" and the words that open and close this book. Darwin, as most scientists of his day, was also a theologian. Darwin lost his belief in God, not because of what was in his book, but because of the death of his young daughter who languished for two weeks in agony before she died.

Gabe,
The fear is about losing the the 7th day Sabbath; and the tension between SDA focus on medicine as it's been part of the SDA persona around the world, which is based on science; and the literal reading of Genesis based on Archbishop James Usher's chronology of the Bible resulting in the 6ooo year old earth, which defies science. If the days of creation are not literal then SDA theology loses it's authority for the Sabbath. This is the result of belief coming BEFORE proofs for it.

We all read EVERYTHING from some given perspective. SDA theology has given itself a foundation based on one particular perspective. Lose the perspective - lose the faith. But I have been under the illusion that Christianity's base is Christ, not Archbishop Usher's 17th century chronology.

Thanks Sirje. I think you're onto something. But I still believe that there is something even deeper than that. When we get to the deepest core fears then that is the place where the real dialogue takes place. It's actually not as much to do with theology at that point but primal fear of loss, survival, annihilation, meaninglessness ...

Theology has typically been the field where Adventists go to fight their battles, even when they are not necessarily ultimately about theology.

Gabe,
Isn't all theology about a fear of meaninglessness?

SDAs are a product of their culture just like everybody else. SDA theology is a 19th century theology, born during the industrial revolution when God became a technician and fashioned man with his hands. Society lost the sense of mystery and everything had an explanation including God. So now we know exactly how and when God made universe and everything in it. It's no longer enough to say, "I have no idea how God created, nor should I. It is a mystery."

So yes, it's about certitude where our faith and hope lies on a specific interpretation of words penned out of tradition, and not on Christ whose disciples we are supposed to be. Faith and science had to meld in the SDA world of mixed ideologies.

Sirje,

You have pointed out several themes that have made Adventists persist in the belief in a 7-literal day creation.

One: the change from reading the Bible allegorically, which was done even by the Hebrews and the early and later Christians who never read it all literally.

Two: the SDA fear of losing sabbath which is tied to 7-day literal creation. Without that, poof! goes all their raison de'etre. The interpretation when Adventism originated was brought over from the various denominations: all the Bible must be interpreted literally and they ignored the other creation story. How many SDA school children were ever taught that one? We were all taught to memorize the events of 7 days, never realizing there was an alternate story that man was the first of God's creation.

Was it a planned choice to ignore this story? Many of us were unaware of it until much later, and studying the Bible independently we found all was not as we were taught, and then doubts arose as to many other doctrines we were taught. Once one begins questioning such church authority, the gates are open to independence and searching what is in the Bible, not how others have read and interpreted it.

Thank you, Justin Kim, for contributing some coherent analysis about what Dr. Geraty is actually saying!

Wow, it took a while to read all the above posts, which I wanted to do before I commented.

When one tries to incorporate Evolution into the framework of the Christian/Biblical narrative, how does one deal with death? The Biblical account has death entering into the world only after humankind was created. Whereas Evolution requires death from the very beginning, one of the driving forces of natural selection.

How can the philosophy of the Bible ever be compatible with that of Evolution? Clifford Goldstein argues (video link posted above) that evolution even gnaws away at the Redemption story. If Christ came to destroy death, how does the Christian narrative remain coherent if this same Christ had used death as the method in which to create humanity as gradual evolution through natural selection would necessitate?

Of all the comments, Joseph (above) and Sean Pittman's a while back, are the a couple of the most provocative and logical - but my experience in dealing with evolutionism, and every other type of humanistic, intellectual or philosophical type reasoning is that no matter how much you reason things out, either for or against, you really never get anywhere in cases like this, because one side has let go of the only foundation of Truth, the Bible, and they have been left to "beat about on the rocks of infidelity." (GC 522)

We can argue and reason until we're blue in the face, but if one side of the argument no longer revere's the Word of God as Absolute Truth, and tries to rationalize it to fit their understanding of "science falsely so-called", then we'll never get anywhere with them, and they need to be politely/lovingly shown to the door - Please read what our Creator God, who knows the end from the beginning, has to say through the Spirit of Prophecy over a hundered years ago about this very issue that we are discussing here today in this very forum!!! (Please read this Elaine!)

"Human knowledge of both material and spiritual things is partial and imperfect; therefore many are unable to harmonize their views of science with Scripture statements. Many accept mere theories and speculations as scientific facts, and they think that God's word is to be tested by the teachings of "science falsely so called." 1 Timothy 6:20. The Creator and His works are beyond their comprehension; and because they cannot explain these by natural laws, Bible history is regarded as unreliable. Those who doubt the reliability of the records of the Old and New Testaments too often go a step further and doubt the existence of God and attribute infinite power to nature. Having let go their anchor, they are left to beat about upon the rocks of infidelity." {GC 522.3}
"Thus many err from the faith and are seduced by the devil. Men have endeavored to be wiser than their Creator; human philosophy has attempted to search out and explain mysteries which will never be revealed through the eternal ages. If men would but search and understand what God had made known of Himself and His purposes, they would obtain such a view of the glory, majesty, and power of Jehovah that
they would realize their own littleness and would be content with that which has been revealed for themselves and their children." (GC 522-523)

Yet so many of the people in this discussion, are supporting the ideas being taught by one of our SDA Universities, as enlightening, and open-minded, because it allows people to "think for themeselves" by questioning the Bible. I'm all for thinking for yourself, and studying things out for yourself, forming one's own opinion, but never at the expense of chipping away at the ultimate authority of all Truth here on earth - the Sure Word of God, and definitely not teaching our young impressionable students, that it is ok to question God's Word, for any reason, but especially if it seems to contradict the "THEORIES" of science!

Tony C

Elaine, I gladly stand by my assertion to hold the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy above all science falsely so called! I don't see how that has anything to do with whether or not I use a computer or read history - If I find something in either of those that leads me to disbelieve the Bible, I'll gladly get rid of it - and so should anyone who plans to be Judged by the True Word of God, come Judgment Day! Sorry if this sounds a little "right-wing" or "tea party"esque) to some of you, I just don't see how we can casually disregard the Holy Word of God, for our own all-important philosophies and reasonings! I really don't need to say all this, God already has, so why not listen to Him, and read what He has presented to us through His prophet for these last days, EGW:
(When I say please read this Elaine, I'm not referring you to my arguments - I'm referring you to God's - through EGW, please read the two short paragraphs below:)

“There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.” [Proverbs 16:25.] Ignorance is no excuse for error or sin, when there is every opportunity to know the will of God. A man is travelling, and comes to a place where there are several roads, and a guide-board indicating where each one leads. If he disregards the guide-board, and takes whichever road seems to him to be right, he may be ever so sincere, but will in all probability find himself on the wrong road." {GC88 597.3}
"God has given us his Word that we may become acquainted with its teachings, and know for ourselves what he requires of us. When the lawyer came to Jesus with the inquiry, “What shall I do to inherit eternal life?” the Saviour referred him to the Scriptures, saying, “What is written in the law? how readest thou?” Ignorance will not excuse young or old, or release them from the punishment due for the transgression of God's law, because there is in their hands a faithful presentation of that law and of its principles and its claims. It is not enough to have good intentions; it is not enough to do what a man thinks is right, or what the minister tells him is right. His soul's salvation is at stake, and he should search the Scriptures for himself. However strong may be his convictions, however confident he may be that the minister knows what is truth, this is not his foundation. He has a chart pointing out every way-mark on the heavenward journey, and he ought not to guess at anything." {GC88 598.1)

Science should be judged by the Bible, not the Bible by science - period!

so should we revert back to the old belief that the sun goes around the earth...since it was "stopped" for Joshua?

and can we finally stop looking for the "dome"of Genesis up
in the sky, since the Bible tells us that it is there, it must be there...holding up the waters "above"... no matter that science cannot find it?

and the next time your basement gets moldy, will you call in a witch doctor to perform incantations after sprinkling the blood of two dead birds all around? is that more effective than bleach?

and is your wife so unclean one week every month that you send her out into the wilderness until she cleans up?

Sirje said -

I doubt many on this site have ever read or even seen the "Origin of the Species" and the words that open and close this book. Darwin, as most scientists of his day, was also a theologian. Darwin lost his belief in God, not because of what was in his book, but because of the death of his young daughter who languished for two weeks in agony before she died.
==================================
BobRyan said -

Well - why not let Darwin speak to the point and then leave the conclusion as a trivial exercise for the reader?

Bob quotes Darwin -----------------------------

Darwin said:

"Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused thee.

"But I had gradually come by this time, i.e. 1836 to 1839, to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindus….

"By further reflecting… that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracle become, - that the men of the time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible to us,- that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events,- that they differ in many important details…

"I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation…. But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I feel sure of this, for I can well remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans… which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct."
================================

in Christ,

Bob

Tom, we both recognize that science is never static: there will always be new discoveries that will challenge, or even change old theories.

With those who believe that everything written in the Bible is absolutely true and unchangeable, they must ignore new findings if they cast doubt on the Bible which was written long before most of the discoveries during the past 5-600 years have been made. "Knowledge is increasing" which means the pace of new discoveries has exponentially increased.

Just this morning I was reading in the latest Newsweek of new discoveries in neuroscience of the brain's fantastic energy while at "rest" which was previously unknown before the fMRI and PET. There is no such thing as the brain resting. This is only one of many new discoveries unknown even a few short years ago.

How many new findings in geology, archaeology, and other disciplines have changed concepts of the Bible writers? Could they have had prescience, or were they not humans writing about their world as they understood it? Did they even know that their "world" was only a fraction of habitable lands? Limiting one's knowledge because it conflicts with the Bible is to close one's mind to new understanding.

You believe, I presume, that the Bible was never written as a scientific textbook but to point us to a guide for lives in all generations.

"there is no room whatsoever for God ANYWHERE in the current "peer reviewed" scientific journals!"

Why should anyone expect there to be? God is not the study of science, but theology. It would be no less preposterous to read a scientific article that credited witches for diseases, or that night air produced fever! God can never be put into a test tube or subjected to any examination. To even suggest such an endeavor demonstrates the fallacy of such a depraved idea.

If there's no room in science for God, then why do we try so hard to fit evolution science (which requires more faith than the faith required to believe in an All-powerful Creator) into our religion and schools? Even going so far as to sacrifice our one sure foundation & authority on earth - equal to God Himself, the Bible??? It's perposterous!

Missed the action over the weekend, but want to say, belatedly, a big thank-you to Larry.

One (negative) comment I read said: "New truth will not contradict the truth God has already given us."

This is just the problem we're facing: Many Adventists cannot accept the Holy Spirit, who does bring us new truth (though it is always in harmoney with the fundamental meaning of Jesus' life and teaching).

Consider slavery, which the Bible nowhere explicitly condemns. I doubt that the commenter wants to re-instate slavery, but you'd never guess it from what he said.

Chuck

Bevin,
I've always maintained that it is impossible to do a double blind study on prayer. All it takes is one child at bedtime somewhere in the world saying, "And God, bless all the sick people," and whoops, there goes your control group! It is utterly impossible to have a "non-prayed for" group so there are really no conclusions to be drawn.

I thought your link was exactly right. Those studies say more about the researchers than about prayer.

Geraty is correct in his assessment of the creation week. The early chapters of Genesis are a statement of faith, not fact, and should be seen as such. The realities of what exists are couched in terms a frail human mind can understand - not a scientific statement of what really occured. Theologians back at least to the time of Philo of Alexandria would agree with Geraty's view: or rather, Geraty follows a long tradition which exemplifies devout belief interfacing with an understanding of the natural world as we grow to appreciate its wonders more fully. The theological message of Genesis emphasizes God's creative act in the face of the forces of Chaos, exemplified by the waters which exist before creation begins and which God constrains and sets boundaries on. It is a theme that the OT returns to often, Rahab the sea monster, the enemy of God, epitomized by Egypt and Babylon which God, in time, always subdues. We should not limit God to the inadequacy of the language we use to describe either Him and His acts, or the limits of our ability it understand Him or His creative act.

I would like the Michigan Conference president to tell all of us SDAs on which day(s) of the seven-day creation week God created the crocodile and the snake and its poisonous venom. And then how God pronounced at the end of the Creation week that all was "good". This cannot be agreed to of course by any Adventist (namely that ferocious, carnivorous or poisonous animals were created in the seven-day week). By this simple question alone is it not obvious that created things have happened outside a literal seven-day creation week? Gabe Sanchez is addressing this issue and asking the same question in a different way. If the Michigan president would deliberately ask himself this question and other obvious questions he might better understand that there are some very difficult issues here which dogmatic answers do not give satisfaction to. (see: Gabe Sanchez (not verified) | 01 June 2010 at 10:05)

What is lacking in this debate is Transcendent Eloquence--the skills and willingness to look at the issues involved without demonizing the other side's position; to be able to describe the other side's position the way "they" not "you" see it; to be able to speak in love despite our differences; to be able to ask "why" things are the way they are, and become part of the solution--not add to the problem. As a pastor, I deal with fellow Adventists who listen too much to the likes of Rush Limbaugh who prides himself at being disagreeable and at caricaturing the "other side." How I wish the Michigan Conference had had the wisdom to apply some transcendent eloquence on this whole matter. Do they think that by applying negative pressure on LSU that they are making themselves part of the solution? They have made themselves part of the problem. Instead of coming alongside LSU and offering to help in whatever way possible, they are in danger of becoming the proverbial Pharisee and Scribe who would much rather see their brother and sister languish in the ditch rather than extend a helping hand. Perhaps LSU put itself in that ditch. But what have they done to help? A bunch of condemnatory resolutions are not exactly helpful!

Bob,
Clearly Ellen White agrees with your point of view, and I clearly disagree with both of you on this matter. My experience and that of many others has been that one can reject the six literal day thing and still love the Sabbath. That fact stands regardless of your evidence.

What does that say about my view of Ellen White? I have disagreed with her on a number of things she said, such as, the Shut Door which affirmed salvation for only the small band of believers that hung on to Oct. 22 1844; the provisional forgiveness of sin as espoused in her view of the Investigative Judgement; her notion that wearing a wig causes madness; her idea that women who wear a corsette will give birth to daughters with waists that are too thin etc. I have done so on the basis of my interpretation of Scripture and my own reasoning powers.

This does not mean that I reject her ministry out of hand. She has written beautifully about Jesus and clearly loved him and I therefore take her seriously. She has something to say. But I would not feel free to do what you do, which is to take to a statement she has made as the final word in a discussion. So let me confuse you a little more, I disagree with EGW on some basic issues but still hear God's voice in her writings. I know I am not the type of Adventist you would want me to be. Life IS complex but grace is amazing.

Smuts

Smuts said:
Posted by: Smuts van Rooyen (not verified) | 04 June 2010 at 8:11

Bob,
Clearly Ellen White agrees with your point of view, and I clearly disagree with both of you on this matter. My experience and that of many others has been that one can reject the six literal day thing and still love the Sabbath. That fact stands regardless of your evidence."
========================================
Bob replies:

Smuts -
Free will being what it is - I do not challenge your love for the Sabbath nor do I challenge Darwin when he says there was no way to reconcile the Bible doctrine on origins with the one coming from evolutionism, nor do I challenge Richard Dawkins when he makes the same claim about his experience going from Christian to atheist, nor do I challenge Dr. Provine when he says the same thing regarding his experience, nor do I challenge Ellen White when she claims that God showed her that particular insight.

In my view it is helpful for people to see the lengths to which they must go to hold a given position in favor of belief in evolutionism - and your being willing to state that Ellen White was wrong in 3SG 90-91 - is helpful for both sides to see the issues more clearly.
==========================================

Smuts said:

"What does that say about my view of Ellen White? I have disagreed with her on a number of things she said, such as, the Shut Door which affirmed salvation for only the small band of believers that hung on to Oct. 22 1844;"
------------------------------------
Bob replied:

1. Actually - The issue is "What does that say about your understanding of the 1Cor 12 gift of Prophecy" especially given that Numbers 12 "inconvenience" about how it happens and the 2Tim 3:16-17 -- 2 Peter 1:20-21 "inconvenience".

2. As for the shut door - Ellen White never stated that God showed her that only the 1844-millerites were saved. And she never stated anything along those lines - in the form of the 3SG 90-91 regarding what God had shown. Trying to think up an equivocation between something that she "believed" at one time vs something she said God actually showed her - is an all-uphill project because it does not stand up to the inconvenient details of the case.

----------------------------------
Smuts said:

the provisional forgiveness of sin as espoused in her view of the Investigative Judgement;
========================================
Bob replied

Again your problem is not with Ellen White - it is with scripture. Matt 18 clearly depicts "forgiveness revoked". So also does Ezek 18 and Romans 11:20.

But in the case above - your added problem is that you are also missing the key element of the I.J by ignoring the fact that in the judgment your salvation status is not changed - it is merely observed to be whatever it is and then certified.

Thus going into the I.J lost - will not get you saved.
Going into the I.J saved - will not get you lost.

A correct understanding of both Matt 18 and the I.J. is key in coming to a right conclusion in that regard.

--------------------------------------------------

Smuts said:

"But I would not feel free to do what you do, which is to take to a statement she has made as the final word in a discussion. "
=======================================

Bob replied:

I may have been unclear in my hast to provide that quote from 3SG 90-91 regarding theistic evolution as disguised infidelity that destroys the force of the Sabbath etc.

I also affirm "SIX days you shall labor... for in SIX days the Lord made.." as a formula that is not accepted as another way to say - "evolution of all complex life over millions of years" - but rather a flat contradiction of it.

===========================================

Smuts said -

"So let me confuse you a little more, I disagree with EGW on some basic issues but still hear God's voice in her writings. I know I am not the type of Adventist you would want me to be. Life IS complex but grace is amazing."

--------------------------------------

Bob replied:

My objective is not to evaluate "who is what kind of Adventist" - my objective is a faithful rendering of the text of scripture - and knowing the difference between Bible based doctrine vs man-made traditions. Thus when I contrast the doctrines on origins found in evolutionism - I find them to flatly contradict the doctrines on origins found in the Bible. Whereas when I look at Adventist Fundamental Beliefs - I find them to be in harmony with the text of scripture.

in Christ,

Bob

Frank, welcome! and thanks for chiming in. As you astutely note, we have much more to consider where time is concerned. Many people point out that if we're reckoning days the biblical way (sunset to sunset), then we run into some problems when we visit places near the poles where during some parts of the year, the sun almost never sets--in other seasons, it almost never rises. A literal 24-hour day is how we now reckon time...the biblical writers might not have conceived of things exactly as we do today (which should not come as any surprise!).

John, you stated “Man compounded the problem of what day constitutes Sabbath by arbitrarily setting the international date line...” Have you not read that the placement of the IDL was "Providential?"

The following quotation is taken from the Bacchiocchi/Ratzlaff Sabbath Debate: Part 19, Samuele Bacchiocchi, Ph. D., Andrews University

“In the absence of any Biblical injunction, it is perfectly right for human judgment to determine the location of the date line. The fact that the decision to place the line at the 180th meridian in the Pacific Ocean has produced order and has met the satisfaction of all the world, must be seen as an indication of providential guidance on the matter.

The Scriptures teach that political powers are instituted by God (Rom 13:1) and when they exercise their powers legitimately to ensure law and social order, they are fulfilling a divine mandate. In the case of the date line, the decision of the international community must be accepted as divinely sanctioned, because it detracts no honor from God, it exalts no individual, political, or religious organization, and it benefits all people.”

Hmmmm . . . I guess God changed his mind when the date line needed adjusting? Or did He simply make a mistake the first time? Or can we always rely upon the opinion of scholars?

frank

This would be as funny as Landover Baptist site if there were not so many who are very serious about the day.

..."The Scriptures teach that political powers are instituted by God (Rom 13:1) and when they exercise their powers legitimately to ensure law and social order, they are fulfilling a divine mandate"...

Hitler made the trains run on time...built the autobahns...
instituted universal health care...was loved by his people...

if "providence" put him in place to rebuild Germany and to "ensure law and social order" after a humiliating loss in WW-1, it doesn't say much about the "foreknowledge" of Providence since Hitler had to be removed later..not by providence, but by his his own hand under threat of his neighbors.
***************************************

the Lord didn't intend us to go to Barrow?

well....who is going to give them the "good news", that if they pick up sticks on the wrong day, or question their Asian origins thanks to the Bering LandBridge 10-14,000 yrs ago...that they will have to be pushed over the Cliff..or worse, our Loving God might have to kill them to clean up the area.

I enjoyed 7 summers up in Ak...commercial salmon fishing out of a mixed adventist/philistine environment. The Dept ofFish and Game, to insure an adaquate spawn upriver, tightly controlled the times and days that we could go fishing.
SDA fishermen had an "interesting" way to accomodate both the sabbath and the need to provide a livlihood for themselves when fishing periods clashed with the Sabbath.

The local conference had already unofficially accepted that with the sun setting in winter as early as 2 in the afternoon, if members were to be able to hold normal 9-5 jobs, and thereby pay tithe, that an "adjustment" was useful...
so in the winter, almost everybody observed a 6 pm to 6 pm day despite the earlier sunsets.
In the summer, with the sun not setting til 11 pm some nights, fridays were not a problem, so a few members would start sabbath at 10-11 sundown friday, but come saturday even, the "unofficial 6 pm" end of the day would be observed, and you could see SDA's out in the shopping mall at 6:05 sabbath evening, 5 hrs before sunset.

this useful "adjustment" was expanded on the fishing grounds.
When a fishing period was open on a friday, some SDA's would fish right up to the actual sunset..sometimes 11 pm......

when fishing was opened on sabbaths...some SDA's would "go out" to the fishing grounds, often a several hour trip, and have "vespers" services there..so no "work" was done on the Lords day, just a repositioning for starting work. then at 6 pm, transition to the 6 pm observance, and it was nets in the water before the sun went down!!!

of course, less than 50 miles to the West of our fishing grounds, it was already the next day!!! the other side of the date line on the Russian side.

all of this made me, as a fresh, young, believe-it-all naive college student, wonder why it mattered anyway to a God somewhere way out there in the vast universe...preoccupied with keeping things from bumping into each other and making gravity work and keeping all the colors in the rainbow.

why was He so self centered that He wanted us to worship him?
He didn't help me escape from Egypt...so the Deut command didn't motivate me....and I was already having questions about how creation in 144 literal earth hours could account for the wonders of nature I was seeing. Like Mt McKinley... which one time I flew my Cessna 180 right next to at 20,000 feet...wondering how 40 daze of rain could cover that!!!

what did it matter what rotation of the earth this "rest" period was...since the fish did not observe any days of rest...why should I?

especially if 50 miles away it was a different day under the same sunshine anyway!!!

work was 24 shudda been 7....
the fish needed catching...
they had been "created" just for food
they were just going up river to have sex and die anyway
people needed the protein
fish had no brains and couldn't feel the pain*
I needed the income to stay in college and maintain my "deferement" from becoming cannon fodder in a war I was unsure of.
and Jesus was a fisherman too....so was the first Pope Peter!!

*I learned later from watching the fish struggle to get out of the nets that they had a very active nervous system, and often felt guilty about "killing God's creatures" by the thousands....until I remembered the college bills...the need for a deferment..and the war going on....

its amazing how we can justify what we want....for a future cause.

cast your bread upon the waters and hope that it will be returned...with marmalade;
pray to God..and beg for a big fish catch;
keep the sabbath to go to heaven;
pretend to believe in the 144 hr literal creation ...to not be thrown over the Cliff;
keep emailing Adriana Lima in the hope she returns the call.

John said -

or was the command to observe the sabbath just intended for the Hebrews...as monument to God's strong arming the Egyptians by massacring innocent children and animals to help them escape, and in their temperate latitude, further explanation was not necessary? other than to remind His friends how their enemies had been treated, so the Hebrews better pay attention.

Deut 5: RSV
15 And thou shalt remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and Jehovah thy God brought thee out thence by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm: therefore Jehovah thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day.

Posted by: john alfke (not verified) | 06 June 2010 at 9:57
======================================================

Bob replied -

It would have served you better to "notice" that Deut 5 starts with the command to go back to the 40 year old tablet of stone and do what it said (and of course that means reading Ex 20:8-11 "SIX days you shall labor..for in SIX days the Lord MADE...>).

Nothing in Deut 5 says "we will now edit the stone".

in Christ,

Bob

Geraty penned: 'Christ tells us they will know us by our love, not by our commitment to a seven literal historical, consecutive, contiguous 24-hour day week of creation 6,000 years ago which is NOT in Genesis no matter how much the fundamentalist wing of the church would like to see it there.'

I had problems finding the area of expertise of Mr. Geraty on the Internet. I was hoping that someone who is shouting in his article that something is NOT in the text of Genesis would have PhD in biblical studies in Old Testament, or at least to be an expert linguist. Instead, I was dissappointed to learn that our guy is an archeologist :) It is not that I underestimate his proffesion, but his statement is so biased that it is obvious that he repeats somebody else's thoughts. No OT scholar would ever dare to declare with such certainty what Geraty boldly shouted without any explanation. This is exactly what I do not like in the whole debate - systematic theologians, natural scientists and excavators are discussing the meaning of the text - the very area that is not part of their expertise and it is only natural that the discussion is so uninspiring. I think the main problem is that in our church there is no real theological discussion. It is almost like a tug of war - who has the 'heaviest' and 'strongest' political figures on his side wins. That is probably why it is insisted on mentioning him being the member of CPEC in the signature. It made me laugh :))) I mean, did you really think that Mr. I'll-be-back is capable to bring something that is of worth to the serious theological discussion???

Bevin -

No matter how good you are, you can not be certain about the meaning of books that are 2000 year old captures of (at the time) 1000-5000 year old oral traditions.

The ONLY way you can insist on Genesis and Exodus being literally precise and true is to ASSUME, CONTRARY TO THE EVIDENCE, that they are.

/Bevin

Posted by: bevin | 10 June 2010 at 7:05
============================

You cannot pay people to write that stuff. If only Wisbey, Geraty and the others at LSU could come out as logically and consistently as Bevin has illustrated for us - in stating their support of evolution and all that such a position entails -- or give it up entirely.

in Christ,

Bob
___________________________________________
"The Truth shall make you free" John 8:32

The Bible says that on the 5th cay God created fish and birds.

Atheist evolutionists today claim that instead of the Bible teaching on origins when it comes to birds -- "birds came from reptiles". The atheists see how clearly this contradicts the Bible and so do Adventists.

But this not-so-subtle point is always a "surprise" to the theistic evolutionists among us as if "we weren't supposed to notice" that glaring gap and were supposed to simply "imagine" that "SIX days you shall labor..for in SIX DAYS God made the heavens and the earth the sea and all that is in them" is just another well accepted way to say "evolutionism".

Sadly - nobody believes Moses "was a darwinist" (all the Theistic Evolutionist complaining, hand waiving, smoke and mirrors not withstanding).

in Christ,

Bob
___________________________________________
"The Truth shall make you free" John 8:32

Evolutionism is just the right fiction for the modern alchemist wanting to "believe" that "birds come from reptiles".

By contrast we have "actual science" with real labs showing us that birds are not coming from reptiles and we have the Bible that states that Birds were actually created by God.

And sadly for those who engage in revisionist histories - the historical/grammatical method of exegeting the text of scripture does not require that there be no symbols in scripture.

in Christ,

Bob

___________________________________________
"The Truth shall make you free" John 8:32

Extinction of an existing organism is not "a funny kind of evolving". You do not get birds from reptiles by killing off all reptiles. And hint -- you don't get birds from reptiles at all in actual biology experiments or even observations.

"Changing the animal world" can be done through breeding programs - but mantras about "birds coming from reptiles" speak to a much larger principle than "change in the animal world".

A plague of locusts "is a change in the animal world".

A drought, a breeding program, a harmful mutation, extinction are all "changes in the animal world".

But it is a far cry from proving that complex life forms arise from single celled animals!

in Christ,

Bob

Lawrence T. Geraty wrote in "There is more......La Sierra Story":

Christ tells us they will know us by our love, not by our commitment to a seven literal historical, consecutive, contiguous 24-hour day week of creation 6,000 years ago which is NOT in Genesis no matter how much the fundamentalist wing of the church would like to see it there.

My response:

"If there is no consecutive, contiguous 24-hour day week of creation," neither is there a God who at the first and second resurrections will simply by speaking recall billions of humans back into existence instantly. Nor is there a fire that cleanses the earth and nor does the apostle John see "a new heaven and a new earth," the biblical context which absolutely implies and demands an instantaneous spoken creation. of course, the seven day week by which the world has functioned from antiquity simply doesn't exist no matter how much we would like to believe there is such an event.

You can not have it both ways Mr. Geraty. The stupendous future acts of instantaneous creation in the Book of Revelation; the miracles of Jesus on earth; demand a world created in 7 literal days. From beginning to end, the bible is consistent only with God's absolute power to create and recreate instantaneously. Otherwise, the bible is simply a book of tall tales.

as far as love goes, an old Jewish proverb tells me that i can "hug a person with one hand and slap him with the other" when there is disagreement.

george manzuk