Sorry Jan, but Adventism will lose all of its credibility if it abandons a recent creation in 6 days and compromises with a Darwinian, evolutionary position. It is intellectual suicide, because the 2 sides are mutually incompatible.

To incorporate Darwinism into our theology is to read the Bible with our eyes closed.

Theistic Evolution (Evolutionary Creation) is NOT Darwinian evolution. I recently had the privilege of hearing a Christian speaker who self-labeled himself as an Evolutionary Creationist. He was firm in his affirmation of belief in all of the salvific issues that Mark Kellner lists as being denied by such as "Giberson and Stephens". And "firm" is not really an adequate word to express the vigor, emphasis, and rheotoric even, with which he denied that God and creation was left out of Evolutionary Creation views but rather that whatever actually happened so far as the "process", it was still "GOD that was doing the creating.

Forget "Darwinianism"... it is only a word that is made up by those who wish to close their minds to the witness of God's first book... that of nature itself. We should never forget that not only does God reveal himself in "two books" but also that the Book of His Works is, in matters pertaining to that which can be seen, more universally understandable than is that of His Words. Notice, for example, which is given first place in Psalm 19, which affirms both.

Teachers know the value of "Show and Tell"... and how much more effective it is to show a rabbit than to describe a rabbit... especially to those whose culture and language uses different words for naming and describing. A rock is a rock in any language. The word "rock" may or may not have the same meaning or even exist in other languages.

Thank you Jan for your excellent essay... your final paragraph especially deserves to be enshrined in our minds. I hope you can get Mark to open his mind and take it seriously.

"As genuine knowledge and understanding emerges from the shadows of opinion and belief, it frequently offers up surprises. Beyond the Word on the page, exists the Living Word, and the history of humanity is one in which either/or domatism gives way to transcending truths. For beyond any interpretation, the weight of evidence has a long history of getting the last word." -Jan Long

"...the damage I see being done by the AR for the ongoing credibility of Adventism in the broader world...."

So many of the blogs on Spectrum orbit around this meta-theme, it seems to me.

Years ago, I regret to say, many times looking like the Perfect Adventist Family was more important to me than staying with the messy process of being a family, which I really didn't understand, being steeped in standard-issue Adventist perfectionism as I was.

It was definitely not good for my children for me to be more concerned about what other people thought of them and our family than about what created a healthy family, and what their actual developmental needs were.

Adventism is, at base, a family, not a brand, not an intellectual product to market to the world.

This extreme self-consciousness of Adventism stands out in bold relief to me, and, it seems to me that it is standard-issue perfectionism in new clothes.

It's always the same: people are watching; we are being judged; shape up.

Dr. Larson recently wisely, I think, advised that people aren't going to change just because we want them to, and moreover, they aren't going anywhere, so Adventism will have to learn to live with diverse views.

So it seems to me that instead of all this energy being directed into self-consciousness about Adventist "credibility," this energy could be better directed into forging Adventist family unity-in-diversity.

Noam Chomsky says the US is about to propel itself off a cliff. If ever there was need of a seed group that could create and share healthy social structures, that need is now, and Adventism is that group, I believe.

I share Dr. Larson's conviction that "ethical imperialism" cannot be tolerated, because God has given us all moral agency, and it is immoral to demand we surrender moral agency to anyone.

Adventists all have a right to their own walk with God and their own way of looking at the Bible, Ellen White and life, I believe.

I have the unpopular conviction that the White Estate, with its long history of manipulating Adventist thought by manipulating information (this is simply incontrovertible), must be called out publicly on this immoral and unethical practice, and propaganda should be called by its right name, seen for what it really is, if Adventism is ever to get on sound social footing.

The problem isn't that Adventists believe different things, the problem is that Adventists have always been manipulated to believe certain things, and some have dared think out of that box, while others have not.

That is not the same thing as saying that everyone should think outside that box. People have cogent reasons for being where they are. They should have breathing room to shift as they need to, is all I'm saying.

It's hard, if not impossible, to be a movement with one foot nailed to the floor by propaganda.

This is not directed against specific "bad" people, but is meant to spotlight what I see as a pernicious meme that Adventism has unconsciously perpetuated since the beginning, and which it would do well to throw off, from my perspective. Throw off, I would say, not with animosity, but with steely clear eyes.

Just my thoughts.

Mark Kellner admittedly might have used a more accurate phrase than "no creation" in introducing the dilemmas he cited, such as: "If the Genesis creation story is not literally true," or something comparable. After all, many theistic evolutionists are comfortable being called "progressive creationists" or some similar label. But at the bottom line, Jan Long offers no constructive means whereby the critical issues cited by Kellner are to be successfully addressed if the Darwinian model of natural origins is accepted.

The issue might be simpler were it not for the fact that far more than the historicity of Genesis is at stake in this controversy. As Kellner notes, the issues of sin and salvation lie at the core of this discussion. The Bible is full of symbolic material, which the Biblical consensus enables the reader to decipher. But the collective testimony of Scripture is absolutely clear that the Genesis account of creation is taken for granted by Biblical authors as a literal account of how the earth--and the sin problem--began. Romans 5 and the repetitive references to Adam as a historical character alongside Christ are a key example.

What is more, no one in any discussion in which I have participated has yet suggested any viable middle ground between Darwinian natural selection ("survival of the fittest" by means of the strong devouring and/or exploiting the weak) and the Biblical imperatives of grace and mercy to the downtrodden. Many on this forum who support some form of theistic evolution claim vociferously to uphold social justice. Yet there is no such justice in the Darwinian scheme of things. The suppression of the weak by the strong is, according to Darwinism, both the norm and the ultimate good in the saga of life. Spiritualizing Genesis won't reconcile these two, utterly incompatible systems.

All this talk of "humility" is dangerously misleading. Certainty is not hubris. Mahatma Gandhi was an absolutist in his pursuit of right and justice. So was Martin Luther King Jr. Countless reformers in the historical record, whose life and work have made this world a better place, would have to be denounced as "lacking humility" on the basis of this definition Ellen White perhaps said it best when she wrote: "Skepticism and unbelief are not humility. Implicit belief in Christ's word is true humility, true self-surrender" (The Desire of Ages, p. 535).

In some dilemmas, middle grounds are simply illusory. This is true in the secular as well as the sacred realm. The present controversy over the Genesis creation story and the universality of the Flood is one of these dilemmas. No one has yet suggested any middle posture which does not fundamentally compromise key Biblical truths which none in this controversy (at least within Adventism) have yet purported to be symbolic. We cannot simply "live with ambiguity" when so much of God's Word is unambiguous, on this and so many related topics.

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson

Lemuel Sapian - Wed, 12/14/2011 - 06:26
"Is it a question of science vs. faith?"

No.

Bille

"...a question of science vs. faith..."

Comparing science to faith is like comparing apples to oranges. Two different realms.
One is based on what can be seen, measured, analysed objectively. It has substance.
The other one is just perceived by the senses, imagined, accepted by subjective thinking, etc.

Why is it difficult for so many people to keep these two distinct realms separated as two distinct realms? Why do some have to fight about it all the time? Faith is faith. Scientific information is scientific information. Two distinct subjects that don'r have to be constantly fighting each other. Unless ignorance prevails...

(Editor--see note at end)
It is one of the worst propaganda lies that Christianity and science have nothing to do with each other. The evidence that Christianity built nearly all the foundations of modern science is a matter of the historical record and not a matter of opinion. This proves that Christianity have been for a long time very close partners. Make sure to see Dr. Hannam's (Ph.d. from Cambridge) presentation on this at the Royal Society below.

Christians invented nearly all the foundations of science as well as most of it’s branches (often based on Biblical principles or specific Bible science concepts).
**THE MODERN SCIENTIFIC METHOD: Daniel in the Bible did the 1st experiment with a control group in history and later Robert Grosseteste & Roger Bacon. “Around 600 BC, Daniel of Judah conducted…the earliest recorded clinical trial. His trial compared the health effects of a vegetarian diet with those of a royal Babylonian diet over a 10-day period. The strengths of his study include the use of a contemporaneous control group, use of an independent assessor of outcome, and striking brevity in the published report.” Dr. David Grimes, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7501328,

**THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS: Henry Oldenburg, a theologian, creationist and founding editor of Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, pioneered this in 1665.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review#History

**THE FIRST PEER REVIEWED PUBLICATION: This was probably the “Medical Essays and Observations” published by the Royal Society of Edinburgh, a Christian organization, in 1731. The present-day peer-review system evolved from this 18th-century process.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review#History

Many science and research magazines were founded by Christian scientists, historians and scholars. Scientific American for example was founded by Rufus Porter (1792–1884), who thought that science glorified the creator God. In the very first issue, his editorial stated:
‘We shall advocate the pure Christian religion, without favouring any particular sect …’
And he wrote an article ‘ Rational Religion’, where he wrote:
‘First, then, let us, as rational creatures, be ever ready to acknowledge God as our Creator and daily Preserver; ..Let us also, knowing our entire dependence on Divine Benevolence, as rational creatures, do ourselves the honor to express personally and frequently, our thanks to him for his goodness;”

**THE FIRST SCIENTIFIC SOCIETY IN HISTORY: The Royal Society, was started by John Wilkins and other creationists. Wilkins published ideas on how speciation must have happened based directly on the Bible account of Noah’s flood, Genesis references to variations within kinds and observations of nature.

**OCCAM’S RAZOR: John Ockham pioneered Occam’s razor (although we see hints of it before him going back to the Greeks and before them in the Bible.)

**FALSIFICATION: Falsification was pioneered by G. K. Chesterton (but again there were hints of it before him..and explicit cases of it in the Bible. See for example, Malachi 3:8-10 where God tells people to test His promises.)

Peter Harrison, (Andreas Idreos Professor of Science and Religion at the University of Oxford) writes,
“It is commonly supposed that when in the early modern period individuals began to look at the world in a different way, they could no longer believe what they read in the Bible. In this book I shall suggest that the reverse is the case: that when in the sixteenth century people began to read the Bible in a different way, they found themselves forced to jettison traditional conceptions of the world.” Harrison, P., The Bible, Protestantism and the rise of natural science, Cambridge University Press, 2001; see review by Weinberger, L., J. Creation 23(3):21–24, 2009 (in press).

As Prof. Harrison explained:
“Strange as it may seem, the Bible played a positive role in the development of science. …Had it not been for the rise of the literal interpretation of the Bible and the subsequent appropriation of biblical narratives by early modern scientists, modern science may not have arisen at all. In sum, the Bible and its literal interpretation have played a vital role in the development of Western science.” Harrison, P., The Bible and the rise of science, Australasian Science 23(3):14–15, 2002.

Stephen Snobelen, Assistant Professor of History of Science and Technology, University of King’s College, Halifax, Canada explains that when Protestant scientists started to study nature in the same way they studied the Bible, esp. refusing to impose outside philosophies and traditions on it, this led them to do the same with nature.
“It was, in part, when this method was transferred to science, when students of nature moved on from studying nature as symbols, allegories and metaphors to observing nature directly in an inductive and empirical way, that modern science was born. In this, Newton also played a pivotal role. As strange as it may sound, science will forever be in the debt of millenarians and biblical literalists.” Snobelen, S., “Isaac Newton and Apocalypse Now: a response to Tom Harpur’s Newton’s strange bedfellows”; A longer version of the letter published in the Toronto Star, 26 February 2004.

"The thirteenth century began with a scientific method that lacked experimental methods and lacked an approach to truth that applied naturally to physical things. It concluded with an essentially complete scientific method with a workable notion of truth. Because of Robert Grosseteste at Oxford, Albertus Magnus at Paris, and other medieval scholars, it was the golden age of scientific method. Never before or since that century have the philosophy and method of science been advanced so greatly." pg. 58 Scientific Method in Practice Hugh G. Gauch Jr. (M.S. in plant Genetics from Cornell University and currently a professor there), Cambridge University Press, p. 52.
http://www.css.cornell.edu/staff/gauch/index.html

You can see some of this book online here:
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr&id=iVkugqNG9dAC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=...

CHRISTIANITY & CREATION SCIENCE PROMOTED, NOT HINDERED SCIENCE
Did Christianity oppose and hinder science? NO. It actively pioneered it in many areas with astronomical amounts of manpower, financing, facilities, instruments, training, political support and in other ways. It’s one of the biggest modern myths that Christianity and science are in a conflict. Nearly all scholars in the history of science reject this notion. Steven Shapin, Professor of Sociology at the University of California, San Diego writes,
"In the late Victorian period it was common to write about the "warfare between science and religion" and to presume that the two bodies of culture must always have been in conflict. However, it is a very long time since these attitudes have been held by historians of science." The Scientific Revolution, Steven Shapin, Chicago, 1996, p. 195.

Dr. Hannam has degrees in physics and history from Oxford and London universities and a Ph.D. in the history of science from Cambridge University and wrote “God’s Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science". He just released a new book, “The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution” This has been reviewed very positively by major secular scientists and organizations:
“Well-researched and hugely enjoyable”. New Scientist http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2010/08/the-great-and-the-q...
“It is engaging, informative and I heartily recommend it.” says Ruth Francis, Head of Press for Nature http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2010/10/ruths_reviews_gods_p....

Dr. Hannam also gave an overview of the above book in a presentation at the Royal Society (1st scientific society in history which was started by a creationist Christian John Wilkins who also published ideas on speciation in the 1600s, LONG before Darwin.) about how Christianity and the creationist view of the world laid the foundations of modern science that no other culture ever achieved (Dr. Hannam is not a creationist. He’s an evolutionist. But, he agrees that the creationist view was fundamental to the development of modern science. This makes the claim even stronger since it is admitted by an evolutionist). Watch it here and a rough summary of it is after the review of the book belw:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-k24Q01vck
(A summary of the presentation is in the notes under the video)

Scientists of the middle ages would be completely dumbfounded by the accusation that Christianity and science are at war...people like Nicole d'Oresme, Albrecht of Saxony, Albertus Magnus, Robert Grosseteste, Thomas Bradwardine, Jean Buridan de Bethune, John Philoponus, John Peckham, Duns Scotus, Thomas Bradwardine, Walter Burley, William Heytesbury, Richard Swineshead, Theodoric of Fribourg, Roger Bacon, Thierry of Chartres, Gerbert of Aurillac, William of Conches, John Dumbleton, Nicholas of Cusa and any number of other Medieval scientists. These churchmen and others were intensely interested in examining the physical world and did it with the full support and no repression by the church. The church like every educational and scientific establishment in history had to decide what it understood to be the truth and teach truth to the best of its ability. The church of the middle ages did make some serious errors, esp. in following pagan philosophy instead of the Bible and it wasn’t perfect in science either. But, far from repressing science, Christianity from that time up to the present has been one of the biggest if not the very biggest supporter of science overall in all history. See these links for much more documentation of this:
http://creationsafaris.com/wgcs_0.htm#origin
http://creationsafaris.com/wgcs_1.htm

(Editor—I have written and tracked down much information myself…but to debunk the complete nonsense that science and religion aren’t related, I cited many experts and this is crucial to educating people about the indisputable facts of history. Truth is freedom and this is one of the most important indisputable truths..that without BIblical philosophy, most modern science would not exist..or at least would be centuries behind where it is now. I will try to keep most posts short and cut this one almost in half.)

I think the trick is to be able to live with uncertainty. Larry King, who survived a heart attack, once said he didn't want to die because he wanted to know how it comes out. He is admittedly and agnostic - which simply means, he admits HE DOESN'T KNOW. If we could be honest for just one minute that is what we all would have to say. I can see the down arrow heating up already.

Much of this resembles the story about the emperor without clothes. Along my journey I have come to really dislike the bulk of what is called, "Christian music". The tunes are sometime lovely and the words - well, it;s about those words... They use to make me feel totally inadequate as a Christian. I always thought these guys knew something I didn't. The poetry is assuring and so very hopeful; but who are they trying to convince?

We all have our own individual songs. Some of them are full of pain and grief; while others glory in the sunshine and fresh air - all from each of us, at different times in our experience. It would be so helpful if we learned to be real and trust each other to be able to say "I'm hurting"; or, "I'm confused" - without a Bible study thrown in our faces, as if to say, "You dummy, get with the program."

These issues we're trying nail down are not "nailable". The answers grow out of individual experiences and can't be argued.

But Jans point as Maggie said is not to live with ambiguity. He see's believing in creation as damaging to Adventist credibility. Further he see's AR even allowing Marks piece to be published as damaging to Adventist credibility.
Therefore, by definition, he is not fine with some believing in creation and some not.
You can tell how rabid his position is by the ground the issue is being discussed on.

In Jans case the ground being discussed is not an individualistic personal basis. He says the AR allowing the piece to be published is damaging.

One should note that Jan sidesteps EVERY ONE of the questions Mark suggests and pontificates on his personal beefs. However in doing so he violates his own beef list.

"For the past few years now I have witnessed a shrinking commitment to Christian charity, serious scholarship, and careful conclusions in its articles, particularly those intersecting faith and science—..."
He shows Mark no charity, fails at the scholarship part by blathering of his own conclusions without proving his position on the questions Mark proposes which specifically intersect faith and science.

Quote
(Mark) "If the Bible account of Creation isn’t true, .......... Where, and how, did sin enter the world?"
(Jan) "Really? Does the op-ed piece really force such questions?"

If Jan cant see those are the questions that intersect faith and science then he is useless speaking in the public square on these topics.
He is the type of math student that just writes his answer at the bottom when the situation requires seeing the work.

Dear Maggie:

There is no need for the church to reconsider its stand on sin and perfection. The Bible and the writings of Ellen White are crystal clear on the subject. The lapse of time does not turn error into truth or sin into righteousness. This is one of the most basic reasons why the worldview you represent and the one found in the Bible are mutually exclusive, and why no peace is possible in the church so long as the view you cherish is held and promoted.

What you describe as a "heartless purge" several decades ago was, and is, a simple matter of accountability. If I were to work for President Obama's re-election campaign, and then publicly declare my belief that Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, or Ron Paul was better qualified to serve as president, no one would question the right of the Obama campaign to terminate my employment. It's a free country. No knock on the door in the middle of the night would disturb me in that case. But so long as I work for the Obama campaign, the president and his team have the right to expect loyalty. That is not intolerance. It's integrity.

Sincere seekers for truth will not be drawn to spiritual ambiguity. There is enough of this in the secular world without bringing it into the church. People admire individuals, as well as churches, who stand unwaveringly for their convictions. As one who has mingled and socialized with secular people in a variety of settings, I know whereof I speak.

The greatest tragedy of what happened a few decades ago (and I suspect you're talking about Glacier View and its aftermath) is that it was never finished. Too many who held the unscriptural views of Desmond Ford and his fellow travelers were allowed to keep their jobs and stay in the church. Even more tragically, the false gospel of justification-alone salvation and the imperfectability of Christian character was permitted to remain among us, even though it was precisely this false gospel which logically produced the attacks on the sanctuary doctrine, the authority of Ellen White, and other of our core beliefs.

A moment of reckoning has come to the church once again. A stand must be taken. Lovingly but firmly, those who deny our faith and its lifestyle imperatives must be held accountable. It will be a terrible ordeal, as the servant of the Lord writes. But nevertheless it must take place.

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson

Kevin Paulson,
What's the latest on your pastoral assignment?

Maggie, Christ is not divided. But Christ Himself declared, "If ye continue in My word, then are ye My disciples indeed" (John 8:31). It was He who declared to Satan in the wilderness that man shall live "by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (Matt. 4:4). It was He who declared that "whosoever heareth these sayings of Mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock" (Matt. 7:24).

The Jesus of Scripture was not a pluralist in His theology. He did not teach that doctrinal beliefs and lifestyle choices are irrelevant to salvation. Neither Ellen White nor any other instrument through whom God reveals His objective will, is the issue here. It is the written counsel of God that determines both our place in the eternal world and the legitimacy of our place within the body of Christ on this earth.

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson

George: "Comparing science to faith is like comparing apples to oranges. Two different realms."

For once, George and I agree.

Faith cannot explain to me how a helicopter is able to work and why airplanes fly. Science cannot explain to me why evil exists or even define what evil is.

Mark Kellner wrote from the perspective of faith and theology. Jan Long wants greater "credibility" of which such intentions remain suspect. If greater "credibility" is sought to allow the Gospel to penetrate the deepest reccesses of agnosticism and atheism, then we defeat our own purpose. To say agnosticism is right and wrong is intellectual folly.

Maggie: "Did Ellen White die on the Cross for you?"

No, but neither did Paul or Peter. What's the point? The words of truth resound from the pen of Paul and I believe from the pen of Ellen White as well.

Christ is not divided, Maggie, but there are many "Christs" out there in the world today. All but the One are false. Are there many interpretations of Christ? Maybe, but that is why there is the written Word.

Lemuel S.

With all the wonderful scientific discoveries and inventions by Christians, their one compelling interest was to discover "why and how." Had they been content as have most religions, they would have merely accepted that it was designed by God and there should be no reason to question.

For those who don't dare to question, it could be because of fear: what is not known needs no examination and it simply can be accepted that "God intended it that way."

But the real cause of either certainty or uncertainty by some is that there is an unstated and unasked question: The Bible is the Word of God. Where does the Bible ever claim to be the Word of God? It is only man's descriptions of God and antiquity does not infer human infallibility or even accuracy of facts. Man simply retold the stories they had heard centuries earlier and finally captured them on scrolls. Once set down permanently, they instantly became frozen, unalterable, and gradually gained such a pedestal as to become biblioalitry--the position held by many today.

ellenoir,
Well, that's just it. "They" are lugging around their own array of coats. We only think "they" have figured it all out. Throughout my own personal battles of faith and belief, I hang on to how Jesus characterized God as "Daddy" and I know, whatever my questions it's all going to be all right.

Dear Elaine:

You ask: "Where does the Bible ever claim to be the Word of God?" I don't wish to sound condescending, but that sounds embarrassingly easy:

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (II Tim. 3:16).

"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man; but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (II Peter 1:20-21).

Paul declared in another of his epistles:

"When ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe" (I Thess. 2:13).

Little wonder that in his subsequent epistle to the Thessalonians--same chapter, same verse--he writes:

"Goth hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (II Thess. 2:13).

Salvation, according to Scripture, is thus a matter of the internalized acceptance of truth--as distinct from a mere theoretical acceptance, which can save no one. Which is why Paul wrote to Timothy:

"Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them; for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee" (I Tim. 4:16).

"Bibliolatry" is a fancy, contrived word meant to discredit those who hold Scripture to be the final, transcendent authority in all things spiritual. Seventh-day Adventists hold unashamedly to this authority. Those within the church who cannot in conscience do so should have the integrity to go elsewhere.

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson

I am not particularly comfortable with ambiguity, and hope that it can be resolved in due course, but in the mean time I pay attention to the data. -Jan-

So if what you say is true, what is this damage you speak of? If it hasnt been proven then why do those that dont believe in a non creation account cause damage?

It seems you cant have it both ways. If me and my brother show up late for thanksgiving and he says there is only 1/2 a turkey left and I say, no, there is only 1/4 of a turkey left, why is one viewpoint damaging and the other not?
Neither of us know or can prove how much turkey is left.

It seems rational to assume you are ashamed to believe in creation and that the reason is peer pressure. That is the "damage". There is no other rational argument to be made for one opinion having "damage" over another when both are unprovable and always will be so.

An absolute law of science and logic is; ex nihilo nihil fit, (out of nothing, nothing comes). Most protagonists refer to the famous debate between Wilberforce and Huxley but fail to mention the equally famous debate between Bertrand Russell and Frederick Copelston. The infamous quote of Russell was: "The present universe is the result of an Infinite series of finite causes"

Compare that with: "In the beginning was the word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginnign with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made. In hime was life; and the life was the light of men. John 1: 1-4

Or "He spake and it was done, He commanded and it stood fast."

The amazing thing is that "He" became flesh and dwelt among us. In that sojourn "He" turned water into wine, He fed 5000 with a boy's lunch, He stilled the waves and calmed the winds, He cast out devils, He healed the sick, He forgave sins, He called forth Lazarsus from the tomb. He laid down His life and took it up again at the call of His Father. All in historical time. We have a great cloud of witnesses.
Evolutionists have only infinite series of finite causes. So whose mind is closed?

Tom Z

Dear Elaine:

It was you who asked, "Where does the Bible ever claim to be the Word of God?" I responded with a number of texts which answer your question. If you want to call this circular reasoning, you are the one who started the circle. If you ask where the Bible makes this claim for itself, and then someone provides the answer from the Bible, what else can you expect? If, by contrast, you were to ask on what outside basis the Bible's claims can be verified, that is another matter. But in fairness, you did specifically ask where in fact the Bible makes this claim for itself. And I gave you an answer from Scripture. That cannot justly be called circular reasoning.

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson

Thanks for this Jan. It would be nice to think that offical Adventism is interested in maintaining collegial relationships with Christians in other communities.

While I do not want to give up on engaging the more conservative and literalistic elements in the Adventist church in genuine, vigorous and respectful conversation, increasingly it seems that those elements are not really interested in doing so. I don't think the rest of us can just wait until they change their mind, and I hope we can move away from just focusing on "is it permissalbe for Adventists to consider non-literal interpretations of the Bible" to assuming the answer is yes, and then seeing all the wonderful places that answer can take us.

My own rejection of a young earth, short week version of Creation is rooted as much in the Biblical evidence as it is in the scientific evidence.

Dr. Long, my reaction to Mr. Kellner's article was almost identical to yours. In particular, your set of three bullet points of why AR's articles fall short, particularly with respect to origins, is spot on.

My limited interactions with Mr. Kellner have revealed him to be exceedingly respectful and polite. I have seen people leave very hostile, rude comments on his Facebook page to which he displayed extraordinary restrain, courtesy, and professionalism. (I find it difficult to reconcile my observations with Mr. Kellner's voice in this article.) I think Mr. Kellner understands that when one publishes such a piece one should expect to be challenged in return.

But I would like to challenge you on two points, Dr. Long.

First, you write: "Unfortunately, the AR has been co-opted by a few in General Conference leadership bent on focusing the energy of the Church on a few divisive issues." This strikes me as an unlikely conspiracy theory. I agree that there seem to be several GC leaders that have adopted a narrow set of pet issues. But my understanding is that Mr. Kellner has been writing for denominational publications for some time as have some other voices willing to be vitriolic in regards to origins (for example). Identifying a recent shift in emphasis, or drawing a connection between the alleged shift and, say, Ted Wilson, is something that I think is a little hard to justify. But that's just my opinion. Maybe I'm wrong.

The second point is that of tone. I understand that the "closing mind" motif is borrowed from Alan Bloom and Spectrum's recent article referencing Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind. Still, aiming that phrase at a specific person, namely Mr. Kellner, seems unnecessarily pejorative. (Even Bloom meant the phrase to be derogatory.) And I empathize with the at times overwhelming temptation to point out the arrogance or humility of various voices in these kinds of philosophical debates. I do it to. I want to call out hubris when I see it, because it drives me nuts. But when we really think it through, we have to ask ourselves: Is this ever helpful? I have yet to see an occasion in which the answer to that question is yes.

After all, this is in part what you are criticizing Mr. Kellner for (rightly so, IMO). Those Christians (or Adventists) who disagree with Mr. Kellner about origins are accused (by Kellner) of believing "the Bible account of Creation isn’t true," of being disingenuous with their tolerance, of holding "conformity to the world’s standards above allegiance to the Lord of hosts"--all of which, in this context, are judgements of character. And you, Dr. Long, are asking that we do better than this kind of emotion-drive table pounding. I agree. So let's dispense with attempts to determine who is or isn't humble or arrogant, or who does or does not have a closed or open mind.

For my part, I feel that the kind of table-pounding declaration of conviction and all-or-nothing dichotomies that turn meaningful disagreement into moral judgement which are so front-and-center in Mr. Kellner's article are quite unhelpful. They are shortcuts to meaningful dialog that unity and progress requires. It's easy to declare without argument that I "take God at His Word" (implying, obviously, that those who disagree with me do not), but it's quite hard--no matter what one's position--to negotiate the complexities of science and religion and constructing a faith community around shared belief--as was painfully obvious from our excellent discussion in Spectrum's Summer Reading group. Mr. Kellner's point of view is an extraordinarily important one and needs someone who is able to articulately and respectfully represent it in the kinds of hard yet constructive conversations I am talking about. If only Mr. Kellner's--and Mr. Goldstein's--firmly held convictions would motivate them to do more than metaphorically shout "Nu-uh!" in the Adventist Review, as they are exactly the kind of talented, intelligent voices their position desperately needs.

Lemuel...
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I certainly did not mean to suggest that real conversation was impossible with conservative Adventists - as I noted I do not want to give up on this. I am sure you are right that there is fault on both sides, and once one is deep into any entrenched feud there is little benefit in trying to identify who started it, or who has offended more often. My only point is that, while continuing to offer to engage in thoughtful and respectful conversation, I am no longer willing to be held captive by those who refuse to do so. I would like to see those in the Adventist community who are so inclined to simply continue to expand on where non-literal (from my perspective, genuinely Biblical) understandings of Creation, family, justice etc would take us.

I find the hyper-literal interpreation of Genesis to diminish and trivialize scripture. I find nothing in either the Hebrew or Christian Bible that requires, or even suggests, such a literal reading. Instead, I find that much of both Bibles invites on its face a more imaginative, methaphorical, poetical or mythological reading. Indeed, Adventist theology is predicated on such a symbolic interepretation of "days" in other parts of the Hebrew Bible.

I don't share this as amunition to try to persuade anyone who disagrees with me, but because you asked. I don't feel the need to try to purify the church by rooting out those who I think have things wrong. My point here is that, even if we did not have the overwhelming scientific evidence that casts doubt on the idea of an earth that is less than 10,000 years old, I would be suspicious of the claim that a serious and honest reading of the Biblical geneologies requires the conclusion of such a young planet. I am also suspicious of the claim that a serious and honest reading of the Bible requires the belief that the earth revolves around the sun. or that a great fish swallowed a man whole and then spit him out again healthy and alive three days later, or that a poor man in heaven carried out a conversation with a rich man in hell.

Paster Kevin:

I suggest that when you finish your studies, you plant a church in the Pacific, with East-West orientation, the pulpit being on the west side of the dateline, and the pews being on the east side. On the west side Sabbath you can mount the pulpit, but of course, there will be no members in the pews, it still being Friday in the eastern side of your church. On the eastern Sabbath, your faithful will sit in the pews, but behold, you won't be at the pulpit, it being Sunday up there.

You can thunder away, quoting EGW, about the defining stamp of Sabbath observance in the final days, and how a God who demands strict observance of his laws, handed down in unbroken days from Creation to these last times, so that the faithful might with full confidence discharge their duties, is looking with approval on his flock for their adherence to the letter of the law. No disrespect for the Lord of Creation in your church, and no bending the knee of accommodation to those who would change times and laws in contradiction to the Will of God.

You can keep that up until it dawns on you that something is a little off here...

PS: I'll happily join a mission trip to help build this church. Of course I'd like a tax deduction for the vacation as is standard on such missions....

Kevins says: "the universal Biblical assumption ....""

There is no such thing as "the universal Biblical assumption ". All religion is interpreted religion. The assumption you are referring to is better phrased as the "the human assumption" - it is man's interpretation of the Bible. The Bible does not speak for itself, it has to be interpreted, which also goes for all scientific facts.

There is no text without a context!

Ole

Maggie -

I did appreciate this line from your post above -

"Years ago, I regret to say, many times looking like the Perfect Adventist Family was more important to me than staying with the messy process of being a family, which I really didn't understand, being steeped in standard-issue Adventist perfectionism as I was."

There's a lot of wisdom packed into that reflection. And some people lose their marriages or their children over the very issue you identify here.

What always interests me about forums like this is the lack of social cues or social history that might offer some context for people's remarks, and might also help us to love one another in spite of our differences. The same might also be said of print pieces like the Adventist Review. These forums are no substitute for the real face-to-face interactions that make up our families (or ought to make up our democracies, for that matter). Outsourcing the process of being a church family (which includes working out - or loving each other through - our differences) to our computer screens and propaganda pieces is a pretty hollow form of Christian community. Perhaps we need a renewed commitment to reconnect with each other at a personal level and resist the illusion that the church can truly exist in any other form than flesh.

The right Biblical interpretation is usually the most obvious one--such as in Genesis 1-11. But because it is politically incorrect to accept the Genesis record as it reads, some feel compelled to seek for alternatives. And the devil laughs.

Can someone identify the evidence out that that demonstrates that God created the world using evolutionary processes? What test is there to demonstrate God is behind natural selection and common descent?

Isn't the Adventist Review God's perfect bowling team on earth?

Set up the pins and bowl a 300 game with each issue.

@Robert Jacobson--
On your first point of critique, I should advise you that the point you are quibbling over is actually a revision of what I submitted. My article as submitted considers the meaning of this and other similar AR articles in recent times, speculating over whether in the long run the church will stay engage with the rational world. It was not about conspiracy theory.

Your second point is particularly worthy of comment. First, as mentioned in the article, I consider Mark Kellner a friend, albeit not a close friend. I am therefore sensitive to the question of “tone,” particularly with respect to Kellner. The key to interpretation, however, is found in the following paragraph where I state the following:

“My main motive for this article is to speak to the damage I see being done by the AR for the ongoing credibility of Adventism in the broader world…”

The tone I hope to have conveyed is fairness, and the imperative of humility for all of us.

Jan

What do you suggest? Do you not agree that the very fabric of what it is to believe as a Seventh-day Adventist disintegrates if current scientific knowledge is accepted? There is no choice but to fall on the sword of the fundamental beliefs or reject what it truly means to be an SDA. There is no purpose for the church itself to exist if we do not have the one and only unique expression of the ultimate truth. There are plenty of Christian churches that have incorporated theistic evolution in one flavor or another. And all are wrong according to EGW and the 28FBs. How can The Review do other than what it is doing?

Are you suggesting the dissolution of the whole church?

@ Michael, you said “So if what you say is true, what is this damage you speak of? If it hasn’t been proven then why do those that don’t believe in a non-creation account cause damage?”
____
Michael, let me make it real simple for you. My argument is not against “belief” in creation or the traditional Adventist interpretation of Genesis. If you read the article, I think you already know that. That said, my real commitment is the pursuit of truth, and that means staying engaged with all avenues that lead to a better understanding of reality, including data. GRI has the capacity to play an important role here. To the extent that we turn our back on the data—through our publications and through our formal statements of belief, we cause damage. That is what I am referring to.

Jan Long,

Excellent response to the best fifth grade writer God's present AR perfect bowling team has to offer.

Except for the proverbial "but" as in "pursuit of truth".

How about "pursuit of increasing knowledge"?

John Mark,

You really need to suck on a tootsie roll and navel gaze.

Charles, I recognize that "truth" and "knowledge" are distinguishable. For philosophical realists, "truth" equates to "reality." Reality is what we pursue and knowledge relates more to where we are along the pathway of understanding. Good distinction though...

Original;
My main motive for this article is to speak to the damage I see being done by the AR for the ongoing credibility of Adventism in the broader world.

Clarification;
To the extent that we turn our back on the data—through our publications and through our formal statements of belief, we cause damage.

So in case #1 You worry about Adventist credibility. Specifically to "the broader world"
Since you didnt say, to the Academic community or to other theologians, I took it to mean the average unchurched man in the street in every country in the world. ergo, peer pressure.

In case #2 you suggest what Adventists believe about creation "causes damage" No one turns their back on data as you suggest, its just that many of us find it less credible than you particularly happen too.

Damage to what? Ourselves? Others?
I wish you would just say what you are so scared of. What is this fear you have of how the broader world will see you?

Using the same criteria you do, would you find it OK to for those of us who believe in creation to say that you damage Adventism?

David,

I think you are wrong about just about everything you say.

But, it seems I am forced to agree with what I think are your views that accepting the conclusion of mainstream science means the death of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church.

I would love to have a vision of what a more enlightened Adventism could be, and how that would still be unique, have the "only" truth, and fill a niche not already taken by others, but not one person has ever been able to articulate such a vision for me nor have I seen one articulated here on Spectrum or in any other writings. There is plenty of information about what is wrong, but little about what it should be.

It seems that what many out here in Spectrum want is to stay associated with the culture of Adventism they were raised in, but do not want to ignore what their brain and their senses tell them to be true of the real world and beyond. This is a conundrum to be sure. In the end, it is one thing to make progress in social issues around gays and women, but another thing to reject the creation and flood myths (and EGW's pontificating on same).

If there is a way out of this other than to have you show them the door, I would love to know.

@David Read, you said: "So, Jan, a mixture of liberal interpretations of Scripture combined with speculative human theories about origins comprise "a more firm foundation" upon which to build the Church than the word of God alone?"

____

Exactly, and therefore GRI serves what purpose?

Kevin Paulson wrote:
"Liberal theology, with its fictive christ who never condemns wrong, is fundamentally hostile to the worldview found in Holy Scripture and proclaimed by classic Adventism."

Kevin, you mention a fictive Christ. I don't understand. Christ only condemned "wrongs" among the Pharisees, those who thought they knew it all and were perfect in their obedience to the law. Yes, in fact I bet the Pharisees of Jesus' day were "Last Day Generation Theology" folks, no? Those were the ones who received condemnation from Jesus.

I don't know but that your Christ is the fictive one. Because the Christ I read about was loving, and kind, and compassionate. He hung out with the worst of the worst, and when the sinners were thrust at Him, such as the woman in adultery, He looked at her and said, "Neither do I condemn you...." So I see a Christ who didn't condemn people. Why would Jesus be so condemning now (during this investigative judgement-- have we even one sin still on our record?) when He wasn't condemning when He walked this earth?
Ah, such is the Adventist schizophrenia....

I would love to have a vision of what a more enlightened Adventism could be, and how that would still be unique, have the "only" truth, and fill a niche not already taken by others, but not one person has ever been able to articulate such a vision for me nor have I seen one articulated here on Spectrum or in any other writings. -Anonymouswon

This is my question precisely, and exactly why I participate on the Spectrum blog. Apart from social and cultural issues, which I think can be profitably argued on the grounds of Christian ethics, I don't know how to approach this issue of literal belief in the Genesis creation story. I do believe science represents the kind of threat to the SDA fundamental beliefs that Anonymouswon says it does. The fundamental beliefs are a sort of house of cards: removing a literal 6-day creation destroys the entire structure. I just don't see how it can be other. I stay here because I have a deep desire to understand how and why those I love so dearly can possibly see it so differently.

Exactly, and therefore GRI serves what purpose?

I don't know, Jan. What purpose do you think it serves? Has someone over at GRI come up with a good way to make long ages geology fit with Seventh-day Adventism? If so, I haven't heard about it.

What are you hinting at by your references to GRI?

....taking away our doctrine of origins causes the entire structure of Adventist doctrine to collapse like a house of cards. There's nothing left but the Heritage Singers and Big Franks.
David and Esther

There is that - which is not as inconsequential as you might think. But, that house of cards is not dependent on what day God made the earth, followed by the sun .... Neither is the cross dependent on what day the cows started eating grass. Ah - the Sabbath. Yes, well, maybe we could start ignoring the fourth commandment in Exodus and start quoting Deuteronomy instead; but that would bring up too many problems since in Deuteronomy it sure sounds like it was meant for the Jews. But we could use the same rationale there as we do in Daniel and and make it all symbolic, where the "leading out of Egypt" could mean "leading out of sin" (since Egypt is often used as symbolic for sin).

As for hanging on to "distinctiveness" , I recall somewhere Jesus saying "By this you shall know that you're mine, that you love each other." Does the SDA church stand out for its love for one another?

Professor Fulton said, "I also agree in the Genesis account of creation - as written. I just think that those who interpret that account literally are mistaken."

And therein lies the conundrum. We shall perpetually agree to disagree. Genesis 12-50 are clearly historical narrative and no one that I know of (except atheists and agnostics, of course) disputes that. But where is the rationale for taking Gen 1-11, and making them allegorical? That opens up a can of worms that can eventually lead to denial of the virgin birth and the resurrection of Jesus. The only reason for obfuscating in this area is to avoid ridicule from "real scientists."

As I went back and read my earlier post I see that I was a bit too sarcastic, and I apologize for that. Sometimes I get carried away. :)

By the way, I've always understood "what a crock" to be short for "crock of baloney." But that does sound a bit harsh. I should probably have rephrased it to read "nonsense," or something along that line.

Dear Mike M:

Your version of the events of Glacier View and their aftermath is a case of historical fiction. The Biblical basis for rejecting Desmond Ford's denial of the sanctuary doctrine was clearly spelled out in the book The Sanctuary and the Atonement, by the Biblical Research Institute. I have summarized the Biblical evidence for the 1844 theology quite clearly in my paper, "1844: Embattled Yet Enduring," on the Web site greatcontroversy dot org. If you haven't had the chance, I urge you to read it.

I didn't say Desmond Ford doesn't teach sanctification. His error lies in believing (1) that sanctification and the Spirit's inward work doesn't save the believer, which is contrary to Scripture (II Thess. 2:13; Titus 3:5); and (2) that sanctification can never be perfect in this life, which is also contrary to Scripture (I Thess. 5:23). And you essentially affirm what I have said by insisting that you too believe, in contrast with the Bible, that we are saved solely by Christ's work for us and not by His work in us. Thanks for demonstrating the accuracy of my earlier statement!

Elder Ted Wilson has strongly affirmed, in case you haven't been listening, that we are saved both by justification and by sanctification. This was stated clearly in his Atlanta inaugural, and has been stated by him since. This issue lies at the heart of the challenge facing Adventism. Those who deny the clear truth of Scripture on the ground of salvation and the possibility of perfection in this life cannot rightly be called "good Adventists," despite what any sagacious professor may claim. If you are prepared to say the Word of God is your authority, you had better consider the clear Biblical evidence which demonstrates the falsity of the Fordian position.

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson

Aubyn Fulton wrote:
"My own rejection of a young earth, short week version of Creation is rooted as much in the Biblical evidence as it is in the scientific evidence."
--
With all due respect, this is not possible. I'm a professor of linguistics and it is a red herring to call the Bible only literal or only symbolic. The truth is that like most books, it is literal, symbolic, metaphorical, idiomatic (as well as being prophetic, inspired and more). But, nearly every writer in the Bible as well as Jesus himself speaks of creation science in very literal terms that can not be mistaken for anything else.

Secondly, we have about 100+ methods of dating the earth that show the age of life on earth to be young, in the 1000s of years old range:
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth
(however note that the Bible says nothing requiring the universe to be young..Genesis is concerned with the earth and its surrounding area...it's VERY likely that the universe was created at a different time and is much older. Hebrews 1:2 talks about that.)

We have ~40 that show it to be older, but many of these are debunked by the fact that soft tissue has been found in dinosaur tissues. See the videos in this link and esp. the notes and links there :
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL648C2EAD205F397C

So, the weight of evidence from both linguistics (secular and biblical) and science is strongly on the side of young earth creation science. Those who disagree are not following the Bible or science. They are trying to compromise with establishments that have decided that man knows the truth better than God does, no different from how many Christians in the past agreed with spontaneous generation in the past because that was the accepted "wisdom" of that time.

I have no doubt that you are sincere professor Aubyn Fulton and that you are trying to make sense of things and trying to compromise with what looks intelligent to people today who have banned God a priori from science. But, you and others like you are clearly not following the weight of evidence from linguistics, the Bible or from science in rejecting the Bible's literal account of creation.
Bryan

@ David Read
You previously proposed that we should build the Church on "the word of God alone" so when you asked "what I was "hinting at by [my] references to GRI?" I was merely pointing out that the Church has never operated on the basis of "the word of God alone." If it did, GRI would never have existed.

Dear Bill G:

You truly are crafting for yourself a world of spiritual fantasy if you believe either Jesus or Paul taught a theology that unites all human beings irrespective of theology or lifestyle. That seems to be the position you are advocating, unless I've misunderstood you. You use the word "condemn" in a very broad and sweeping sense, appearing to make no allowance for the Biblical distinction between right and wrong with regard to ideas or actions.

That is not the Biblical worldview, nor is it the Biblical definition of love. Jesus Himself declares to the church of Laodicea, "As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten; be zealous therefore, and repent" (Rev. 3:19). Your spiritual worldview seems to leave no room for this, except perhaps to rebuke conservative Adventists for insisting on an absolute, transcendent standard of right and wrong.

No, my friend, I refuse to "bear" with your thinking, nor with that of others who stray from Bible truth while living a lie as professed Adventists. Nor will I bear with your perversion of Scripture, such as your wresting from context such passages as Paul's statement, "Let every one be fully persuaded in his own mind" (Rom. 14:5), which in context refers to the obsolete ceremonial law, not the overarching theological and moral verities of the Bible. I refuse to grant your thinking the slightest quarter, for it leads only to confusion in the present life and damnation in the life to come.

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson

Somehow all threads usually get a Last Generation Theology discussion involved. My theory is there is so much revulsion against this Adventist perspective that all topics center down to this issue. I stand with my Pastor friend Kevin on this.

Thus a discussion on the Biblical implications of a old vs. new creation will eventually boil down to a discussion of a broader theology.

A commenter posted, "Yes, in fact I bet the Pharisees of Jesus' day were 'Last Day Generation Theology' folks, no?"

This is a statement made out of (probably innocent) ignorance of what this theology teaches. I encourage this poster to study more on what LGT is about.

@ Dr. Fulton: Thank you for your perspective. However I cannot share it for it has very grave theological consequences. If one is to hold the perspective you hold, the question is now how we can determine if anything in the Bible can be taken at face value at all. And if any of it is true.

If we allow science to dictate our theology, then what use is theology at all?

Perhaps you feel it is just as bad to allow theology to dictate our science. But one is the Word of God, the other is the ever changing human interpretation of data.

Kind regards,

Lemuel S.

Horatio...
Now you do "know" at least one non-atheist and non-agnostic who disputes that Genesis 12-50 is clearly historical narrative. You are wrong about the only reason for what you term "obfuscating" (what I would term merely asserting) that the Genesis preface is not historical narrative being trying to avoid ridicule from real scientists. Indeed I think the hyper (and in my view artificial) literalism of fundamentalists is what is mostly a function of interaction with natural science, and is of relatively recent origin. I acknowledge that I may be wrong in seeing the Genesis account of creation in literary and poetic terms (I have never said it was allegorical, and do not believe that by the way) but if I am it is not to avoid the scorn of scientists. As I have noted, my understanding is based on my reading of the Biblical texts, not science textbooks.

But I am interested in what those clear guidelines are that you mentioned that you use to distinguish historical narrative from symbolic narrative in the Bible. I don't mean that as a set-up to some rhetorical trap - I think it is pretty clear that we disagree on this kind of thing and that is unlikely to suddenly change - but I am genuinely interested in understanding your approach to this better.

If I had to apologize every time I engaged in a little sarcasm I would be doing nothing but apologizing. Your brief flirtation with sarcasm was mild and harmless. You have a more genteel background than I do if baloney is what your crocks are made of; in my neighborhood crocks are often said to be made of more potent stuff. But my question was not what the crocks were made of, but what a crock actually is.

In any case, it is not the image you use that I object to, but the notion that anything other than a literal reading of Genesis is nonsense. As Jan has stated better than I could in the original article here, while we must maintain a fundamental modesty about the accuracy of our interpretations of the texts, surely we must be able to at least acknowledge that there are more legitimate options available to us than just concrete literalism or atheism? Indeed, in my experience it is mostly literalists and atheists themselves who insist on this dichotomous view.

Sirje said "Does the SDA church stand out for its love for one another?"

I have two little boys. I love them dearly and I would do anything and everything to keep them out of harm's way whether it be physical or spiritual. The SDA Church's stances on doctrine is not out of line with love. I will challenge anyone to show how toleration of evil is "love".

As from a quote attributed to (and disputed) Edmund Burke, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing".

A know not a lot like to rest their conclusions on scripture, I will quote anyway:

"As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent." - Rev. 3:19 KJV

With love,

Lemuel S.

@TJG: "This teaching (IJ) is un-biblical, plain and simple. No SDA Scholar has ever written on the Investigative Judgment in non-Adventist theological journals. They simply don’t want to open themselves up to peer review on this subject."

I don't know of any attempt, ever, to publish and promote this adventist "IJ so-called doctrine" in non-adventist journals. The first requirement for such would be that the so-called "doctrine" be biblically-based. Only biblically. And just this immediately disqualifies it for publishing in non-adventist journals. Coming up with some EGW's quotes to support it would be just laughable for Christians who don't have a "prophet."

If the SDA denomination really cared about this IJ idea, and if they could show it based only on the Bible, they would certainly announce it with a lot of noise everywhere. It would be on TV and the Internet all the time. Imagine, the greatest biblical discovery in ages...

But the SDA leadership and the theologians keep as quiet as possible about it. Almost as if they were ashame of it (which they should actually be!). However, for the "inside public" they keep it as a matter of pride and eletism. It also sells some books...

In my opinion, the best thing the SDAs could do at this point would be to admit and declare that the IJ conjecture is not a Bible-based teaching, but that it was construed based on a biblical passage being interpreted by EGW, They should clarify it by saying that it is accepted by SDAs because EGW was a prophet and her writings are taken as a real addition to the Scriptures. Admitting once for all that SDAs consider EGW's writings as sacred as the Bible is a must at this point in history - because it is a fact!

The Mormons at least admit to it!!! Adventists keep trying to fool people with this idea of "lesser light", which is as absurd as it can be. We all know that in practice SDAs consider EGW's works as inspired as the biblical text, and often give more respect to them then to the Bible when construing a doctrine.

Dr. Fulton, my reasons for concluding that atheists and agnostics would dispute the idea that Genesis is historical narrative are, 1--atheists would not accept any of the parts where God takes an active role (speaking to Abraham, for example), and would therefore relegate them to myth and legend; 2--the agnostic would profess to not know, and would be skeptical for the same reason that the atheist would reject it.

I'm not a theologian. I cannot lay out a "connect the dots" methodology for deciding which parts of the Bible are historical narrative, which are allegorical, and which are prophetic; but common sense usually goes a long way toward solving that conundrum. The dialogue between trees in Judges 9 is clearly allegorical, and whereas Daniel 1-6 contain elements of both history, prophecy, and symbolic dreams. And it is pretty easy to tell them apart. My point is that, unless there is a compelling reason to treat Genesis 1-11 differently from the rest of the book, we should avoid doing so. Exodus 20 says that the Lord created the earth is 6 literal days, and rested on the seventh literal day. To interpret it any other way is to do violence to the text and opens the door to all sorts of fanciful interpretations.

George: "In my opinion, the best thing the SDAs could do at this point would be to admit and declare that the IJ conjecture is not a Bible-based teaching, but that it was construed based on a biblical passage being interpreted by EGW, They should clarify it by saying that it is accepted by SDAs because EGW was a prophet and her writings are taken as a real addition to the Scriptures. Admitting once for all that SDAs consider EGW's writings as sacred as the Bible is a must at this point in history - because it is a fact!"

Uh yes and no, George. It is true many Adventist pastors are ashamed of the doctrine. That is because they do not understand it themselves and they have been poorly trained. Also QoD didn't help but only served to muddy the waters further.

As for your statement that the IJ is construed from a Biblical passge interpreted by "EGW" I can criticize your lack of historical accuracy, but I know your reaction is just emotional. Of course "investigative judgment" is not a word in scripture (neither is Trinity by the way, or rapture, but both are accepted Bible doctrines), but the word "judgment" is. We all will stand before the judgment seat of Christ. No doubt. Perhaps the disagreement is the timing. Well that is why Daniel was inspired to write what he did.

TJG: "They simply don’t want to open themselves up to peer review on this subject."

They've been "reviewed" alright, even since its inception. None positively by anyone outside of Adventism. That is because if the doctrine was reviewed positively by an outsider the only logical thing for the reviewer to do is become Adventist.

In Christ,

Lemuel S.

Elaine Nelson said:

"For those who say that sin is left out of natural explanations, the very cncept of sin comes from the Bible. Christianity offers to solve a problem of its own making. Would you be thankful to a person who cut you with a knife in order to sell you a bandage?

Elaine"

Elaine, does this mean that you are not a Christian? This would explain a lot of your comments which are often anti-Bible and even anti-Christianity.

Pastor Paulson:

Yes indeed, you are an evangelist. As such, you speak to audiences who do not challenge what you say. This gives you a false sense of confidence. I suppose you do well in this type of environment. However, as a scholar you would know not to present this teaching in a challenging environment such as a non-Adventist theological journal. All SDA scholars know this. I suggest the old saying is true: ignorance is bliss.

If you want to say something of substance please address this issue as I've laid out in my previous post. If you don't have an answer, then study up on it and get back to me.

Thanks -- tg

TJG: "As such, you speak to audiences who do not challenge what you say. This gives you a false sense of confidence."

This is not true. Pastor Paulson has repeatedly done presentations and with each he has graciously offered his audiences the opportunity to ask questions and even to challenge the information presented. I have attended such sessions and have had the opportunity to sit with him on a panel.

"However, as a scholar you would know not to present this teaching in a challenging environment such as a non-Adventist theological journal."

Adventist teachings are being challenged day and night outside of the journal environment. How is meeting the challenges outside of the journal world any less "scholarly" then meeting the challenges within? Pastor Paulson has written many articles to date.

For an Adventist to try and publish a positive article on the IJ to a mainstream Christian journal is like an Intelligent Design fellow trying to publish an ID-specific article to a mainstream science journal. Not happening (by no fault of the author of course!).

It is prejudice that usually dictates what is excluded from a mainstream journal not scholarly review. Therefore do not judge the scholarliness of an idea by that standard.

Kind regards,

Lemuel S.

Apparently Bevin is an authority on who and who is not a "decent scholar," since he has decided that only those who reject the IJ are using "decent scholarship."

I detect a very arrogant attitude toward those who have devoted a lot of time and study of the subject and, as a result, believe very strongly that there is no other viable way to interpret Daniel than to arrive at the conclusion that there is an IJ, and that it began in 1844. Those who use "decent scholarship" may recognize that all the visions in Daniel up to chapter 8 lead up to a judgement. And for the most part they cover the same kingdoms and the same time periods. It would be odd if Daniel 8:14 didn't refer to a judgment of some kind.

To equate those of us who believe in this doctrine with those who believe in perpetual motion machines, etc., is petty at best, and comes across as rather childish.

Thanks Lemuel, I appreciate your response. I'm sure you would agree that the "typical audience" that an evangelist would field questions from are rather ignorant of the following: Middle Eastern History, especially from Babylonian to the domination of Israel by the Roman Empire. No to mention calendars (i.e. Jewish, both ceremonial and civil, Babylonian, Justinian and Gregorian) and they would not be able to explain the validity of relying on the Karaite Jewish calendar to establish the Day of Atonement in 1844. And of course European history, with special emphasis on the fall of the Roman Empire along with the rise, development and influence of the Roman Catholic Church in Western Europe. All this, plus the ability to establish the validity of the Historists Method of interpretation over all other methods, not to mention a fairly good understanding of biblical Hebrew and Greek. Therefore, I submit to you that Pastor Paulson's "Q&A" is rather superficial. Am I wrong?

This explains in part why an "evangelist" is so anxious to promote this teaching as compared to a serious SDA scholar who knows not to open themselves up to peer review on the IJ. Those who attend evangelistic meetings are not their "peers."

Your thoughts?

tg

There has never been a better case study of the closing of the Adventist mind that the
comments on this site provided by Lemuel and Kevin Paulson. Their entire house of cards falls flat on the merits of Heb. 9 particularly vrs. 24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us.: Leave Daniel out of the equation--turn rather to Phil 2:5-11

What place can be holier that the place where God is? The Most Holy Place is the Place were God resides--see Isa. 33: 14,15.

The only thing Adventism did was turn a mistake into a folly and then close their mind to honest exegesis.

Tom Z

Hopeful: "Did these audiences include a significant number of non-church members? And I don't mean anyone who's been studying to become an Adventist."

I cannot be completely sure, but if the personalities represented here are indicative of Adventism in general, then being an "Adventist" does not guarantee one believes in the IJ. I do know that in an Adventist "megachurch" close to where I attend only a fraction of attendees ascribe to a positive belief in the IJ. And that's from talking with many of the members.

"Apparently, these collaborations haven't been truly scholarly ones, since neither you or Paulson have the requisite bona fides. Paulson just finished an M.Div., & you from what you've posted, have an undergrad degree in history. Please note that I don't bring this up gratuitously, but to illumine your criticisms re: the world of scholarship."

I don't put too much faith in degrees. I work in a college where I teach specialty courses in online education software to MA and PhD recepients. Not very many of them have the brightest of minds. I don't suggest we brush away academic accomplishments completely, but how about call it more scholarly to discuss arguments rather than who's making the argument.

Besides, the wordly system of academics is not endorsed by scripture. In fact, it is looked down upon (see 1 Corinthians 1).

Truth is not weighed by doctorates.

Kind regards,

Lemuel S.

Dear Tom Z:

You are as settled in your embrace of the evangelical gospel as anyone I know, which is why neither of us is likely to convince the other. But the bottom line in your rejection of the investigative judgment is your acceptance of this particular "gospel" paradigm. I am happy, not only to demonstrate from Scripture the veracity of the investigative judgment teaching, but also the falsity of the evangelical gospel whose premises have challenged that teaching.

I know you're not interested in such a challenge, but I suspect there are honest inquirers who frequent this blog, who need to know that despite claims to the contrary, there has been no "cover up" of evidence by church leaders or anyone else, concerning these issues. Those who reject the investigative judgment do not do so because of "new data" they have innocently stumbled upon. Rather, they do so because their experience-driven acceptance of the evangelical gospel constrains them to discard a teaching which requires intense moral self-examination, which they won't tolerate.

That is really what it amounts to, at the bottom line.

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson

Kevin, I am not going to wade through some website:

Let us start with the first question: Do you believe that you can show anything happening in 1844 based on Biblical prophesy?

As far as I can tell

a) Dan 8:14 is the only text people try to use to get to this date any more
b) The starting point can not be shown
c) The duration can not be shown
d) The end event can not be shown

/Bevin

Dear "TJG":

When you speak of the various aspects of history in connection with the investigative judgment and the historicist interpretation of prophecy, perhaps you don't know that in my case you are talking to a lifelong student of the very history you describe. All those who know me know I have been a history buff since childhood. All of the history you are talking about (Middle Eastern, fall of Rome, etc.) I have saturated myself with all my life. And the more I study, the more persuaded I am of the truthfulness of our historic positions on these issues.

The critics of this doctrine, without fail, are motivated not by objective historical study but by experiential resentment of the Adventist way of life and its moral demands on the individual. It's not that they have any overwhelming desire to find a place in prophecy for the pathetic, insignificant Antiochus Epiphanes. Nor are sleepless nights induced by the presumed exegetical failure to connect Daniel 8 and Leviticus 16. It is all about the conditions of salvation and the imperative of overcoming sin. That is the real issue in all this.

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson

Kevin wrote:

"That is where we differ. It is where the line is drawn between the Bible's view of itself and the vagaries of modern and postmodern intellectualism."

Kevin, I appreciate that we differ, I would guess, on a number of issues. But to talk of the "Bible's view of itself" is, I apologize, is sheer nonsense. You could talk of Paul's, Matthew's and Mark's views of themselves and their own texts, to mention just av few, but none of them knew about the Bible, compiled by the early church fathers centuries later. The Bible, as you probably know better than me, is a compilation of ancient human texts, covering a long time-span. It is not a book or entity as such, and it did'nt fall ready made from haven. It is the work of human being in a human language and culture. It's inspiration does not rely on some magic, but on the sheer fact that it has had and still has a profound influence on human lives.

Your view of inspiration as self-explanatory is like arguing in a circle, and such a notion has no explanatory value whatsoever. It does not belong to theology as an academic discipline, but is a faith assumtion underlying much of fundamentalistic Christianity. It is deeply related to other forms of religious fundamentalism, i.e. conservative islamism.

I wonder what you mean by: "vagaries of modern and postmodern intellectualism"? It is a characterization, not a valid argument, and it surely does not explain itself....?

Ole

Horatio (please call me Aubyn), I don't dispute the claim that atheists and agnositcs would reject the claim that Genesis is a literal historical narrative; I dispute the claim you made earlier, which was that only atheiests and agnostics would reject Genesis as literal.

I didn't mean to ask you for a formal theological argument - I understood you to be saying that you knew of a easy way to distinguish literal historical narrative from more symbolic literary forms. If you are just referring to common sense, then I think the problem there would be that would seems like common sense to me may seem like non sense to you (as you have already informed us) - and of course the reverse is equally possible.

I think you wiil find that there are pretty clear reasons for treating Genesis 1-11 differently than the rest of that book; even if there were not, I am not aware of any reason to assume that the default for Genesis is that it is a modern historical account. And again, if you are going to make the claim that any intepretation other than the one you prefer does violence to the text, you will probably need something more than common sense to support it.

Professor Fulton says, "I also agree in the Genesis account of creation - as written. I just think that those who interpret that account literally are mistaken"

Some implications to consider: The Genesis account sets the foundation for the rest of the bible. As with all logic the premise is paramount. Regardless of if it is read in a literal or metaphoric manner the story as related in Genesis matters and has serious implications.

What I am about to quote will come across as dogmatic, I understand the importance of humility when discussing biblical interpretation, but it is my humble opinion that the following quotation by Pentecostal pastor Jason Dulle is a logical one.

"If Darwinian evolution is sound on its own terms it does not need God to fix it, and indeed has no room for God; if naturalistic evolution is not sound on its own terms we have no reason to accept it as true, and thus no reason to do the exegetical and theological tango with Scripture to accommodate it. If science is adequate to explain origins there is no need to invoke God. The fact of the matter is that the ideas of evolution and creation are diametrically opposed to one another and cannot be reconciled in any meaningful sense without compromising the basic tenets of each idea as they exist in themselves.

If Darwinian evolution is sound Christianity is simply false. If Christianity is sound Darwinian philosophy is false. But both cannot be true because the foundational concepts inherent to each view mutually exclude the foundational concepts of each other...Theistic evolution means design by chance, which is like square circles. Such things do not exist, and neither does theistic evolution." (Theistic Evolution: The Illegitimate Marriage of Theism and Evolution)

It is possible to baptize the theory of evolution with God by wedding the two together. However personally as a Seventh Day Adventist Christian I am not willing to ignore the implications that would result in doing so. I realize that as David Read pointed out there are two classes of Adventism emerging. That is why considering implications, especially when it comes to the foundation established in Genesis matters. The following are 9 implications that as a Seventh Day Adventist I personally find persuasive in maintaining a literal, historic interpretation of the Genesis account.

1. If we believed in Darwinian evolution and the bible simultaneously we would have to perform "exegetical and theological tango with Scripture to accommodate it." I am not a radical literalist, I understand the bible's use of hyperbole (Jesus did not literally want us to remove our eye..etc) and symbolism (Daniel and Revelation), but I do not find compelling scriptural reasons to accommodate Evolution in the Genesis account. Evolution by definition involves strictly naturalistic processes if it can't stand on its own why baptize it into the bible?

2. If evolution is true we must question the nature of God Himself. Because clearly his method of communication is anything but clear. Why does God say 6 days when He really means 6 billion? Why if He was all powerful would He use the modalities of predation and parasitism...to eventually arrive at the "good" declared in the Genesis account.

3. If evolution were true it would cause us to reinterpret the nature of mankind. Are we really made in the "image of God" or are we in actuality as Stephen J Gould would say "Chemical scum."

4.If evolution were true we would have to reevaluate the nature of the law esp the 4th commandment. We are Seventh Day Adventists in part because we believe in the significance of the 7th day of the week. This significance has its origins in the creation account, God rested therefore we rest. If the 7 days are not in actuality literal the command to keep holy the 7th day because in "6 days you were created" is nonsensical.

5. If evolution were true it would cause us to reevaluate the nature of sin and death. Richard Dawkins in his book God Delusion had this to say, "Oh, but of course, the story of Adam and Eve was only ever symbolic, wasn't it? Symbolic? So, in order to impress himself, Jesus had himself tortured and executed, in vicarious punishment for a symbolic sin committed by a non-existent individual? As I said, barking mad, as well as viciously unpleasant. And then, "I think the evangelical Christians have really sort of got it right in a way, in seeing evolution as the enemy. Whereas the more, what shall we say, sophisticated theologians are quite happy to live with evolution, I think there deluded. I think the evangelicals have got it right, in that there really is a deep incompatibility between evolution and Christianity.

Dawkins logic makes sense to me and the bible clearly says that "the wages of sin is death" If death preceded sin the biblical account would appear to be inaccurate.

6. Therefore if evolution were true it would call into question the nature of salvation. "They will call his name Jesus because He will save His people from their sins" If death has existed from the beginning via the process of evolution then it is not our sins that result in death and therefore our understanding of why Jesus would have to die on the cross and "save His people from their sins" must be reevaluated.

7. If evolution were true we would have to revaluate the words and works of Jesus. Jesus quoted from Genesis as if He took it literally. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female’ (Mark 10:6). In these words of Jesus we find He teaches that Adam and Eve were created in ‘the beginning of the creation’—not billions of years after the beginning! John 5:45-47 Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words. Matthew 24:37–39—Noah and the flood quoted as literal, and pointed to that event as a way to know that what he says will come will also occur. If we reject Genesis as literal we have reexamine the way we interpret the words of Jesus.

8. If evolution were true we would have to examine why remain in the Seventh Day Adventist Church. Although there are sectors in the church that support forms of evolution. The fundamentals of our church do not. For me if I believed in a strictly naturalistic evolution I would remove my membership. I may attend church from time to time and enter into intellectual debates about theology but I would not remain a Seventh Day Adventist because my understanding of the Seventh Day Adventist Church and my understanding of evolutionary philosophy are that they are mutually exclusive. For me to remain in the church I would have to see solid answers to the implications listed here. Otherwise I would do the logical thing and remove myself from a system of belief that I personally did not believe in.

9. If evolution were true we would have to redefine the nature of Ellen White's prophetic ministry. For an excellent article about this read Frank M Hassel's article on this in the Journal of the Adventist Theological Society http://www.atsjats.org/publication_file.php?pub_id=245&journal=1&type=doc

All beliefs have implications and that is why I think it is important to address the points brought up in the AR article. The points that i bring up were stemmed from a sermon that can be watched here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aqsm_X_lcTs

As I mentioned previously in the Veith thread, I nearly left the Seventh Day Adventist Chruch. The reasons I would have left were purely intellectual. The reason I remain and can now proudly say I am a Seventh Day Adventist, is because of the logic and implications of our fundamental beliefs. I can trust the bible, and a God who is at the center of the bible who expresses Himself in meaningful, sacrificial love. Do I have questions? Of course. I value meaningful discussion, but discussion is pointless if we do not consider the implications of our belief. That is why we should not skirt past important questions such as the ones brought up in the Review, and then rush forward calling for a middle ground, all the while labeling anything else as dogmatic.

A Progressive Conservative

Kevin M

>>> I have summarized the Biblical evidence for the 1844 theology quite clearly in my paper, "1844: Embattled Yet Enduring," on the Web site greatcontroversy dot org. If you haven't had the chance, I urge you to read it.

Usual nonsense.

I go to http://greatcontroversy.org/ There is no such paper at the top level.

I search, I find http://www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/pau-1844.php

I find the section 2. The year-day principle lacks clear Biblical support.

I read the usual nonsense about the "seventy weeks" even though it is a well known mistranslation, it should be seventy sevens.

I read the usual nonsense about Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6 providing evidence, even though it is clear they don't.

In short, Kevin offers nothing new, and has completely ignored all the research that doesn't meet his desires.

There is five minutes of my life I'll not get back. What a waste of space on the Internet.

/Bevin

Well stated, Kevin. I'm always happy when people with more time and patience, and better articulation, can state the case so concisely.

>>Lemuel writes: "No one is barred from attending a Q&A session, TJG."

Response: That's good to know. Did someone suggest that they were?<<

The point was to show there was no intention to screen audiences to select mere "ignorants". You imply the evangelism is targeted only towards the uneducated. I've attended evangelism meetings where attendees ranged from the local janitor to the university professor. Ultimately the evangelism method does not aim to be "scholarly" but that doesn't mean its claims cannot stand up to scrutiny.

>>Lemuel writes: "You may feel that the "typical" audience is ignorant of many things, but that is not always the case."

Response: The typical audience that attends evangelistic meetings are indeed ignorant of the material I outlined for you not "of many things." I agree "not always."<<

And where is your research to back this up?

>>Lemuel writes: "Pastor Kevin has already indicated his offers to present the case of the IJ were slighted by the AAF. That is not his fault."

Response: Who's fault is it? Paulson is not qualified to present this teaching at that level. An evangelist is not a scholar.<<

Who does the qualifying? Can a child still have something to teach a hardened professor? Anyway Pastor K. Paulson, MA, MDiv can teach a college level class.

Like I said, getting the IJ into mainstream publication is like getting Intelligent Design into mainstream science publication. It is not usually the data that is the fault, but the politics. Most Adventists scholars who advocate for the IJ would rather not play that game. Perhaps, as Pastor Kevin mentioned, it is good to have it in mainstream print, although I believe that chance is bleak. But if there is a chance, why not.

Kind regards,

Lemuel S.

It's quite interesting how we're told about how arrogant it is to be certain about a particular interpretation of the Bible when it comes to Genesis one. But it when it comes to being certain that Adventists got the IJ wrong... well that's not hubris at all. Apparently heaven dropped a completely unbiased mind onto the shoulders of Adventist critics, while the rest of us mere mortals have to struggle with the inherent subjectivity that the rest of the human race must struggle with.

>>> This is the clearest evidence I know in support of the year-day principle.

Indeed it is, and if that is the clearest evidence, then the principle LACKS ANY CLEAR EVIDENCE.

The 490 YEAR prophecy (seventy lots of seven years) clearly shows that no day-year principle is needed in that prophecy. It is used to get around a mistranslation in the KJV of the "seventy lots of seven" as "seventy weeks".

If there was a DAY-YEAR principle then we would be looking at 70 x 7 x 360 YEARS, putting the prophecy into the far distant future.

Of course, 8:14 doesn't say days, or sevens, or anything like that. It says EVENING-MORNING, and does NOT use the exact same words as Gen 1 uses...

/Bevin

Because one has an M.A. does not qualify him as a scholar, unless the term is very loosely used. Everyone who is a serious student could also be called a scholar. In academic circles, the ability to teach undergraduate students only requires an M.A. or M.S. To teach at a higher level a PhD is necessary, and then he is only qualified in a particular, usually narrow area.

"Of course, 8:14 doesn't say days, or sevens, or anything like that. It says EVENING-MORNING, and does NOT use the exact same words as Gen 1 uses..."

Of course, 'ereb-boqer vs. yowm. And the 1150 day theory. But how do you know it's not 2300 evenings and 2300 mornings or 800 evenings and 1500 mornings for that matter? Why 1150?

How do we know that the evening and morning sacrifices are what Daniel is referring to in this text? How do you know it is not meant to mean a day?

An evening-morning makes a day. See Genesis 1:5 for example: "...and the evening and the morning ('ereb-boqer) were the first day (yom)."

Thanks,

Lemuel S.

@Lemuel: "As for your statement that the IJ is construed from a Biblical passge interpreted by "EGW" I can criticize your lack of historical accuracy, ..."

Are you then talking about the "accuracy" regarding the cornfield experience, where a vision was supposedly given to a couple of guys who were emotionally in distress (sick) because of the great disappointment and needed a way out for their own mental balance? Or are you talking about the flawed interpretation of the 2,300 days? Or something else? Please clarify what was my "lack of historical accuracy."

Yes, I know EGW was not the first one to talk about this baseless supposition, but she certainly gave her "imprimatur" to it later on when she became a "theological authority" (wow!) in the church. She agreed with this interpretation and she supported it. So...

Dear George T:

The answer is No. I have had an online debate about the issue with Desmond Ford, on the Adventist Today Web site, back in the fall of 2006. But I have never been invited to debate the issue with a non-SDA theologian. Were I to receive such an invitation, chances are I would accept.

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson

Pastor Paulson:

You write: "I guess I'm a bit confused."

Response: I agree.

You write: "You say you would be willing to somehow facilitate an exchange between me and one or more critics of the investigative judgment, provided the Bible alone is used. I would agree to that condition."

Response: This statement is evidence of your confusion. You're the one who promoted this idea.

You wrote: "But I have a an idea of my own. How about you or any number of folks on this blog, or others who might be connected in one way or another with the AAF or Spectrum, organizing a forum at some agreed-upon location, where I and/or some others would be invited to present the case for the investigative judgment alongside those who would offer criticism? And all of us then agreeing to take live questions?"

What I wrote was: "As far as having an open discussion with "both sides" presenting their case, I'm all for it as long as its sola scriptura."

You also write: "...you keep insisting I am not qualified to address this topic because I supposedly am 'an evangelist, not a scholar.'"

Response: I was simply acknowledging the decision made by the AAF based on what you shared with me. You wrote: "Sometime ago I offered to present the case for the investigative judgment to a chapter of the Association of Adventist Forums ... The head of that Forum chapter made all sorts of strange excuses as to why I wouldn't be welcome... One excuse was that I didn't have an earned PhD..."

The AAF has standards for their presenters and you didn't meet those standards (aka "qualifications").

I hope this clears up your confusion.

I would be more than happy to discuss this issue with you at any level you wish. From now on, I will not address your qualifications. Shall I begin the discussion?

Thanks -- tg

Paastor Paulson,

Are you waiting for some famous non-SDA scholar to invite you for such a debate? Sorry, but this would be ridiculous to expect. Remember: They study just the Bible, so they are not aware of this IJ/1844 proposition!!!

If you think that you have such a hot hunting dog, why don't YOU start asking for debates with some famous non-SDA scholars yourself, so that you can share your treasure with the rest of the Christian community? That would make total sense to me. Are you that sure? So go for it!
(Though I honestly doubt you have the courage, because deep inside you must know the falacy of this teaching.)

On the other hand, if even "debating" with Des Ford didn't convince you of the ineligibility of this teaching to become a biblical doctrine, then I guess it's a waste of time to keep talking about it. Des Ford unwraped the package. But there are still many who refuse to look at it!

But yes, if you start presenting this "doctrine" among other Christians, let us know so that we can attend the meetings and hope for the best!... That's the best we could do for you.

Dear George, as a matter of fact, around 30 years ago Clifford Goldstein locked himself away with only the Bible--no SOP, and came to the conclusion that our doctrine about 1844 and the IJ was the only logical conclusion that one could come to.

Horatio,

Are you claiming that Cliff had never met an Adventist or heard one, or read any SDA literature and by "locking himself away with on the Bible" he not only came up with the IJ doctrine but the exact same date!

Many have deciphered dates in the Bible, but if someone was able to reach Adventism's entire IJ doctrine, dates and all, maybe he should explain his magical powers, since he is the one making the claim.

...Clifford Goldstein locked himself away with only the Bible--no SOP...

Sure, Horatio. No SOP, having already been drenched in this our church's only unique doctrine, he just magically deleted it all from his thought process. Even your "SOP" - our hijacking of the term 'spirit of prophecy' - is troubling.
Of course, as we all know, this staunch irrationality in guarding the orthodoxy is by no means unique to us Adventists. It's a source of frustration to serious thinkers everywhere. This piece, http://isitwritten.wordpress.com/2011/12/14/walking-away-from-the-faith/ could easily have been written by an Adventist.

Reading Dan 8 and in your mind substituting the interpretation for the symbol is instructive.
In the SDA interpretation of Dan 8:13, the question is asked about how long the Pagan/Papal Roman power is going to be oppressing God's people. This power is also described in vs 11 as troubling the sanctuary.
The answer in vs 14 is said to be 2300 years, starting (before Rome became a power) in 457 BC, and ending in 1844 (which as far as I know was no significant year for the RCC.) Then suddenly the idea of Jesus going from one compartment in Heaven to another to start clearing out the sins of the saints is introduced, an event not even hinted at by the angel interpreting the vision to Daniel.
It seems clear that the little horn power is the cause of the sanctuary needing to be reconsecrated, not the sins of he saints,
Interpreting the vision as referring to Antiochus Epiphanes makes much more sense, especially as there is so much reference to him in chap 11.
Interestingly, with Rome as the little horn power, in 8:9 it is described as pushing to the south , the east, and the east! (Whereas Antiochus pushed south, east, and west toward the "Beautiful Land")

Two great Christmas gifts:

Clayton, Philip. editor. "The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science." Oxford University Press, 2008. 1023 pages. $US55.00.

Harrison, Peter. editor. "The Cambridge Companion to Religion and Science." Cambridge University Press, 2010. 322 pages. $US26.00

Form a Sabbath Eve or Sabbath Afternoon group and read and discuss one chapter per session. With 56 essays, the "Oxford Handbook" is almost perfect for a year of weekly meetings.

Don't be snobbish but invite as many as possible to participate. Invite your pastor(s) but lead the discussions yourselves. This makes it harder for others to criticize them.

Read! Discuss! Enjoy the opening of the Adventist mind!

Elaine, read Cliff's book for yourself and you'll see how he arrived at his conclusions. None of us comes to the table with blank slate. We all have preconceived notions of one kind or another. True objectivity is nearly impossible, whether it be in the spiritual realm or the secular one.

Dear George, as a matter of fact, around 30 years ago Clifford Goldstein locked himself away with only the Bible--no SOP, and came to the conclusion that our doctrine about 1844 and the IJ was the only logical conclusion that one could come to. Horatio

So what?

When my husband was kid, he used to go to bed every night , grateful his last name starts with a W. Of course a meteor could have hit the house and there goes that .

What use is all that? What exactly does the IJ add to a Christian experience?

I was a trusting child who had no doubts about the religion I was taught--except the IJ. Why would a God who's all-knowing need to review heavenly records at all, much less for years & years? But, it still scared me spitless. Who was I to understand these mysteries the grown-ups affirmed?

Elaine Nelson wrote:
"Evidently, logic is anthetical to Christianity and I choose the former."

This is absolutely and categorically false at every level. There is no worldview on the planet that has compiled as much evidence as Christianity that I am aware of, least of all atheist and agnosticism which persistently reject the weight of evidence, and use straw men, double standards and all manner of fallacies to get others to do the same. I am not aware of anything more anti-rational than atheism.

I already listed about how Christianity built the foundations of science. It also contributed a lot to building the foundations of logic. Here are some of the ways it contributed to these:
Some of theBible principles led to the development of science are these:

**BE REASONABLY SKEPTICAL & TEST EVERYTHING: It’s an ironic fact that the Bible many times tells people to be skeptical and question things and not to believe just anything they hear. Quite a few times in the Bible God says that He is testing people. He tells them to test prophets to see if they are true and false (Deuteronomy 18:21). He says that we should not trust only 1 witness to convict someone of crime. We need at least 2-3 witnesses (Deuteronomy 19:15; 17:6). There are many other examples of the Bible telling people to test different things. God even says that we can test Him in different ways (Malachi 3:8-10) and Gideon tested God (Judges 6:36-40). Even Habbakuk a prophet questioned God (Habakkuk 1 and 2) and so did others such as David in the Psalms. Paul writes “But test everything that is said. Hold on to what is good.” I Thessalonians 5:21.

**WEIGH ALL THE EVIDENCE: But, rejecting and ignoring evidence is the opposite extreme and just as bad if not worse. In Proverbs 20:8, Solomon tells us that wise judges, “weigh all the evidence, distinguishing the bad from the good.” The Bereans were commended because they didn’t just believe what Paul said when he first came to them. They investigated to see if what he said was true and after that agreed that Paul was correct.(Acts 17:11). In Isaiah 41:21-29 and other places, God challenges Israel to show any pagan gods that has provided as much evidence as he has that they are really gods.

So, the Bible has a perfect balance. Be skeptical and question everything, but be sure to follow the weight of evidence you know about to distinguish the good from the bad.

**ALWAYS BE LEARNING & GAINING WISDOM: Proverbs 18:15 says that “Wise men and women are always learning, always looking for fresh insights”. This inspired Bible thinkers like Solomon and Christians to pursue knowledge about nature.

**TRUTH/WISDOM, NOT MONEY, IS THE ULTIMATE GOAL: Making money is a gift of God the Bible tells us(Deuteronomy 8:18). So, money itself is not evil. Like many things, it can be used for good or evil. But, the Bible also tells us that loving it too much is the root of all evil and will pierce us with many sorrows (1 Timothy 6:10). To be wise, we need higher goals than just making money and the Bible gives us the right priorities in this area. It understands the need for money, but warns us not to make it into an idol. Many times the Bible tells us that finding truth and wisdom are the most valuable objectives. Jesus tells us that the truth will make us free. Solomon says:
"For wisdom is far more valuable than rubies. Nothing you desire can compare with it." Proverbs 8:11

And there are so many others. The wise priorities of truth and wisdom above money have directly inspired Christians to contribute vast sums of both money and energy to building public education, hospitals, science centers and so much more.

Kenneth Scott Latourette, Sterling Professor at Yale University, wrote, "Across the centuries Christianity has been the means of reducing more languages to writing than have all other factors combined. It has created more schools, more theories of education, and more systems than has any other one force. More than any other power in history it has impelled men to fight suffering, whether that suffering has come from disease, war or natural disasters. It has built thousands of hospitals, inspired the emergence of the nursing and medical professions, and furthered movement for public health and the relief and prevention of famine. Although explorations and conquests which were in part its outgrowth led to the enslavement of Africans for the plantations of the Americas, men and women whose consciences were awakened by Christianity and whose wills it nerved brought about the abolition of slavery (in England and America). Men and women similarly moved and sustained wrote into the laws of Spain and Portugal provisions to alleviate the ruthless exploitation of the Indians of the New World…By its name and symbol, the most extensive organization ever created for the relief of the suffering caused by war, the Red Cross, bears witness to its Christian origin. The list might go on indefinitely. It includes many another humanitarian projects and movements, ideals in government, the reform of prisons and the emergence of criminology, great art and architecture, and outstanding literature."
[A History of Christianity, Vol. II, pp.1470,1471]. http://www.tektonics.org/scim/sciencemony.htm

**STUDYING NATURE WAS HONORABLE: The Bible’s view of the world as a place created and designed by God with order inspired rational investigation. John Ray (1627-1705), the great biologist, advised a friend, “What time you have to spare you will do well to spend, as you are doing, in the inquisition and contemplation of the works of God and nature."

Kepler wrote in 1598,
“Since we astronomers are priests of the most high God with respect to the book of nature, it behooves us not to think of the praise of our abilities, but above all of the glory of God. . . . Enough for me is the honor of guarding, with my discovery, the door of God's temple, in which Copernicus serves before the high altar.” Johannes Kepler

Kepler like many great creation scientists “incorporated religious arguments and reasoning into his work, motivated by the religious conviction that God had created the world according to an intelligible plan that is accessible through the natural light of reason….Much of Kepler’s enthusiasm for the Copernican system stemmed from his theological convictions about the connection between the physical and the spiritual; the universe itself was an image of God, with the Sun corresponding to the Father, the stellar sphere to the Son, and the intervening space between to the Holy Spirit.” See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler

**INSTRUCTED PEOPLE TO ADMIT CONFESS ERRORS & MAKE THEM RIGHT: In cultures where “face” is critical, it is embarrassing to admit errors & frequently hidden. This hinders science and sends it down many false detours. But, the Bible’s position on sin, pride and the human condition as well as its admonitions to strive for perfection created an environment where admitting mistakes was an act of integrity and continual improvement was imperative. Personal prestige and honor were not supposed to be the main aim. Truth and progress were far more important.

**USE OUR TALENTS WELL: All through the Bible, God tells people that they are accountable for the talents that God has given them (Matthew 25:14-28). This is quite a strong motivation to use our minds, intelligence and other skills and talents to benefit others and improve their lives. A number of leading Christian writers have understood these biblical principles to mean also that intellectual laziness is a type of sin, since reasoning power is given to all.

Florence Nightingale for example wrote of nurses as the “handmaidens of the Lord” Our work is not done for money alone. It is a service to God. This view was a powerful motivation to use all our talents to their fullest potential.

**LINEAR HISTORY: In a cyclical view of history, all new ideas will be lost in time. The Bible’s linear view of history fostered a culture where innovation could progress and multiply.

**INCENTIVES & A STRONG SENSE OF JUSTICE & FAIRNESS: The Bible’s strong emphasis on justice and fairness everyone regardless of whether they were rich or poor, Jew and foreignernot, was a powerful incentive to be creative and inventive. Most cultures in history were organized on a hierarchy of power and those lower on the totem pole didn’t have a good chance of getting justice. For example, Socrates criticized the idea that might makes right in his day that was widespread. But, the Bible insisted on equal justice for all & condemned oppression of foreigners and partiality.

>>"This is why the 'evening-morning = day' is not the slam dunk it appears at first, and is why the '70 7somethings' is not the '70 weeks' that it naively appears to be."<<

I'm no Hebrew scholar either, I'm just starting to learn. But context tells us a lot about actual phrases. The verse previous to 8:14 is looking for a time frame, not a number of sacrifices. The 1150 day perspective runs into its own set of conundrums such as why he just didn't mention they were 1150 yowm but instead chose 2300 ereb-boqer when referring to a length of TIME. It makes much more contextual sense that he was saying "2300 days" than "1150 evenings and 1150 mornings". Usually the most simplest explanation is the most accurate one.

>>"Curiously, the SDA 'people of the Book' never taught me these complexities. These complexities are known to the experts, but don't get raised in Kevin's evangelistic meetings because he is not telling the audience the truth."<<

Well, you are accusing the man of lying. I hope your accusation has substance.

Lemuel S.

The title of this thread on the closing of the Adventism Mind is asking if it's closed.
Maybe we should ask when it is opened. Some would say that an interested individual has an "open" mind when investigating the SDA doctrines; and it is closed one he accepts them.

The closed mind once settled on what it has learned, has no room to consider or add new information. The guess would be that many fall in that category by their comments here. Either their brains are too small for new information, or the door is shut and barred for anything else. Which is it?

>>> . But I am curious as to what you feel the THEOLOGICAL conundrums of YEC are.

Easy. Why did God create the largest lie in the known universe?

/Bevin

"(Though I honestly doubt you have the courage, because deep inside you must know the falacy of this teaching.)"

Yes, George there's simply no way sincere intelligent people can come to different conclusions about the Bible then you have... You're as dogmatic and condescending toward other people's views as my dear Grandmother. Maybe it's an inbred trait of older folks who grew up Adventists. Only difference is my Grandmother is dogmatic on the other side. It seems you have become what you hate.

Jan Long said:

You previously proposed that we should build the Church on "the word of God alone" so when you asked "what I was "hinting at by [my] references to GRI?" I was merely pointing out that the Church has never operated on the basis of "the word of God alone." If it did, GRI would never have existed.

Jan, the SDA Church founded the Geoscience Research Institute to further the church's mission by providing sophisticated arguments in support of the church's origin's narrative. The origins narrative itself was arrived at long before GRI was ever conceived of, through the study of Scripture. It certainly was not, and is not the case, that the church founds its doctrines upon the study of Scripture combined with human theories about origins, theories which are explicitly atheistic.

The idea that Christian doctrines must be believed by faith alone, without support from reason or evidence, is called fideism and fideism is not the mainstream Christian position. (Spectrum has had several threads where this topic came up and was extensively argued.) So it is certainly permissible to have organizations like GRI provide evidentiary support for the Adventist view of origins, but our doctrine itself depends upon our interpretation of Scripture, not upon whatever support that GRI can marshal in its favor.

George Tichy, I am not in the least bit frustrated that people think they can disprove the IJ through the Bible. My goal in life is to search for Biblical truth, and if I find the IJ to be un Biblical, I will accept that and move on with my life. I am not threatened by the prospect of you proving your viewpoint to be right. My frustration has nothing to do with your theological views and everything to do with your attitude. I thrive on a good challenging theological debate, and I certainly do not mind when the other side is convinced of their position. I do, however, appreciate when both sides respect each other and engage the debate in a Christ like attitude that accepts intelligent sincere people may take two different sides. When you make comments suggesting that the other side must deep down agree with you, or disparage them as not thinking objectively as you so pompously claim you can do (you do realize Sola Scriptura itself cannot be proven objectively?), you do not help convince people of your argument, you simply make yourself look insecure. Like I said my Grandmother uses the same tactic with people essentially telling them that they are going to hell if they don't agree with her on Sabbath. My Grandmother is a nice person and you may be as well. I'm just suggesting that if you truly want to share what you consider to be Biblical truth you should change your tactics. Feelings may not change scriptural truth, but they most definitely change whether people will accept it.

Theological problems with YEC/YLC? Here's a few right off the top of my head.

- Why would God create a world that looks like it is very old and that life evolved on it if it wasn't?
- Why would a loving God allow evil on the earth to begin with? Why not banish Satan to some uninhabited place?
- Why would God set up a temptation (for no good reason - why do they have to be tempted?), then leave Adam and Eve alone to cope with it (especially since being all-knowing and all he knew what was going to happen. Actually, any non-omniscient parent could have seen that one coming a mile away.)
- In that theme, why wouldn't God, knowing the stakes, not be right next to Eve trying to talk her out of it at least? Maybe if someone had said right as she was reaching out "You know Eve, if you eat that you will end up causing thousands of years of suffering. In fact I'll have to come to earth and die," she wouldn't have. Maybe God could have shown her in a vision what would happen. It was the worst case of parental negligence ever. She was not an informed decision-maker.
- Why would God allow animals, which were utterly innocent, to be subject to unmeasurable suffering just because humans sinned? They can't even learn from it; they just suffer. It's mean.
- Why is it fair that every human has to be born sinful just because one human made a mistake thousands of years ago? It would be more fair if we were each given the test anew (assuming there has to be a test which is a big assumption on its own.)
- Who ever decided that sin should equal death anyway? God sets the rules of the universe and I think he totally overreacted to decide that all this suffering had to come about because one person made a mistake. They were sorry for it, they could have learned from their mistake, why in the world did all of this awfulness have to result?
- I think it reflects much more poorly on God's character that things played out like Genesis says, than if God just did away with evil and started over. If the "people on other worlds" think that somehow God is more merciful by allowing evil to get a foothold and then go on and on and on (like it has), they're nuts. Much kinder to allow Adam and Eve to live out their lives, set up some plan of salvation for them, then, after they die, start over preferably without Satan that time around.
- Finally, I just can't understand how all this could play out given an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving God. There are too many aspects that don't compute.

I think that's enough heresy for now!

"Why would God create a world that looks like it is very old and that life evolved on it if it wasn't?"

This question, while philosophical has no relation to theology. Well, I guess in a way it is because it questions the character of the Creator. But you will have to define what "looks old" as no one has been alive long enough to actually observe what "old" really is.

"Why would a loving God allow evil on the earth to begin with? Why not banish Satan to some uninhabited place?"

This isn't just a question that YEC have to deal with. TEs and OEC will have to grapple with this as well.

The rest all fall along the same line with the exception of accepting a literal Adam and Eve. TEs and OECs will have to answer the same questions, but on top of that will have to answer why they feel it is necessary to consider allegorical certain blocks of scripture.

Kind regards,

Lemuel S.

No I have no problem with that position. I believe in the Bible as the sole foundation of theology, not that there may not be other books that provide theology but I agree that the Bible should be the foundation. Indeed most Adventists agree with you on that position as well. You don't think they practice it, which is fine. I happen to think eternal hell fire is derived from extra Biblical sources. However, when I debate the topic with my ex-Adventist friend who holds to Sola Scriptura I do not disparage him as thinking less objectively then me or of somehow being insincere or unintelligent in his belief. I also don't challenge the fact that he truly holds to Sola Sciptura. I accept that intelligent people hold to Sola Scriptura and come to different conclusions and they may unwittingly fall into error. It's one of Catholicism's stronger arguments against Sola-Scriptura and for the authority of tradition... but I digress.

"Apparently Bevin is an authority on who and who is not a "decent scholar," since he has decided that only those who reject the IJ are using "decent scholarship."

"I detect a very arrogant attitude toward those who have devoted a lot of time and study of the subject and, as a result, believe very strongly that there is no other viable way to interpret Daniel than to arrive at the conclusion that there is an IJ, and that it began in 1844." -- Horatio
-------------------------------
Well, it's not just Bevin - I'll stand behind that position as well. Decent scholarship simply will not lead to a belief in the IJ, any more than decent scholarship will lead to a belief in a flat earth.

Horatio, I'm not sure if I understand correctly, but it sounds like your reasons for believing in the IJ are:
- A lot of time and study has gone into it; and
- Those of us who reject it are arrogant.

You may be right about my being arrogant. Many who know me would thoroughly agree, including my two ex-wives :) But that doesn't change the fact that I'm usually right, whether on a question of theology, or troubleshooting a technical issue in my professional role as an IT consultant.

And time studying a subject doesn't necessarily translate into a good understanding of that subject. There have been times at work when I've taken over a technical log that another consultant has worked on for hours, and solved the issue in 15 minutes (and typically found the work of the prior consultant of no assistance in the process.) That's because if you're looking at something the wrong way, you can look all day and not figure it out.

You can certainly choose to believe in the IJ, but don't kid yourself about it being supported by sound scholarship - it just is not.

Dear Beth:

Your questions deserve a substantial amount of discussion and consideration. But from my study of both Scripture and the writings of Ellen White, I find much that is intellectually satisfying regarding the problem of evil, God's tolerance of such, and the sweep of the great controversy. Along with the sanctuary message, this is really Adventism's unique contribution to Christian thought. I know how despised this worldview is among many on this site, but for one who has been both immersed in it throughout his life, and who has appreciated its coherence and majesty, it offers the best construct from which to address the questions you have posed. Not that it answers everything right here, right now. I know of nothing that does. But that's where faith comes in.

Regarding whether everyone is "born sinful" because of what one person did, please understand that classic Adventism rejects that theory. Yes, we are born with fallen natures, but the Bible nowhere teaches the perverse and free-will denying doctrine known as original sin. That is the basis of what has come to be known as the New Theology, or evangelical Adventism. And it is contrary to the Bible.

What I find tragic is that when so many Adventists depart from the classic Adventist worldview, ignoring both the framework and teachings of the Bible as well as the writings of the Spirit of Prophecy, all these questions start to nag and afflict them. As one who has mingled with thoughtful secular people for some time, I can attest that the classic Adventist great controversy theme offers as good an answer as any I know to the vexing questions many continue to ask. The problem with too many contemporary Adventists is that they dislike the moral demands made on them by our classic faith, so the solutions that faith offers to these questions are not desired, and are scored instead. Most unfortunate.

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson

Dear Robert S:

Your stubborn, dogmatic dismissal of the serious scholarship behind the investigative judgment doctrine reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw some years ago: "People who think they know it all are very annoying to those of us who do." Theological liberals claim to resent conservative dogmatism, yet they indulge a fair amount of their own.

You keep insisting that "decent" scholarship "just doesn't" support the doctrine of the investigative judgment. You and many others seem to think that repeating this over and over again will somehow make it so. It is like what Will Rogers said of President Herbert Hoover: "It isn't the things he doesn't know that bother me; it's the things he knows for sure that just ain't so." Reading the comments you and others on this site keep making about classic Adventist beliefs, I am often reminded of Rogers' statement.

I have long since come to the conclusion that so-called "progressive" and evangelical Adventists simply don't want to consider the Biblical and historical evidence which upholds classic Adventist prophetic interpretation, because of the in-depth lifestyle demands and moral commitment these conclusions necessitate. The investigative judgment doctrine underscores and reinforces the necessity of total victory over sin in this life. If you embrace a gospel which professes to emancipate you from this responsibility, and rejoice in the "good news" that you don't have to be perfect this side of heaven (small comfort to those who still have to live with us!), then any theological construct which affirms or supports this requirement is going to be scorned and despised, no matter what evidence sustains it.

That is the real issue here. Not exegesis, not hermeneutics, not history, not any alleged problems with the Biblical languages. At the bottom line, it's about salvation theology.

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson

Bryan Bissell, it does not matter how many people agree on the time period for the 2300 evening-mornings, the fact remains the question "How long" in Dan 8:13 applies to the activity of the little horn, so the answer should be relevant to that, not the entirely out of context matter of the IJ. So how do 457BC and 1844 AD apply to the little horn's activities?

Dear Elaine:

Minds are like windows. Sometimes we like to open them to get fresh air. But most of us still like to keep the screens on. For the mind, that screen is the written counsel of God.

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson

Dear "TJG":

To ask what I might have done, had I been a pastor living in the time of William Miller, is like asking how I would have reacted to the abolitionist movement had I been master of the Southern plantation which my great-great-grandfather owned in northern Alabama before the Civil War. Or whether I would have been with the shepherds and Wise Men on my knees before the infant Savior at Bethlehem, instead of among the priests and rulers expressing scorn at whether a peasant child in a smelly stable might in fact be the Messiah.

All of us would like to assume we would have recognized the evidence for present truth in some past age. Thankfully, we are responsible only for what we know in the here and now. And without question, no other explanation for the 2,300-day prophecy in Daniel 8:14 has the linguistic and historical credence of the one crafted by William Miller and reaffirmed by the Adventist pioneers. Every other attempt to explain this prophecy falls flat. Antiochus Epiphanes won't cut it. He simply doesn't fulfill the particulars of the prophecy, as he was repeatedly rebuffed in his expansionist efforts. The 1,150-day explanation won't cut it, as the language of the text does not allow such an understanding. In my articles on this subject, I have addressed these points in depth. Again I refer you and all others in this discussion to my articles on greatcontroversy dot org, titled "1844: Embattled Yet Enduring," and "The Sanctuary Doctrine: Cultic or Biblical?" Parts 1-3.

Should we wish to have a full-fledged discussion of the investigative judgment on this site, perhaps we could begin with my article, "1844: Embattled Yet Enduring," then elicit comments. That, of course, is up to the masters of this site to agree to. Perhaps after the first of the year would be the best time, since the holidays are approaching and we are all busy.

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson

I note that Pastor Kevin Paulson has completely ignored my questions about exactly how honest he is in his presentation of the 2300 and the 70 7's in evangelistic meetings.

I conclude that he doesn't present the known issues, and does not wish to acknowledge his deliberate decision not to present the known issues.

This is why I characterise this style of SDA evangelistic crusades as deliberate lies.

/Bevin

Pastor Paulson:

If you believe it's to speculative to put yourself in the 1840's then let's substitute the name Harold Camping for William Miller. This will eliminate any speculation. For example:

Brothers and Sisters: I believe Harold Camping is a sincere man, but he is engaging in an activity that the bible makes very clear that we are not to engage in. He is sincerely wrong. This comes from the Master Himself: “…it is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority.” Acts 1:7 (NIV). This is a clear teaching from our Lord. If Jesus says “it’s not for you know something,” then don’t make an effort to “know” it. Don’t do it! Jesus tells us not to predict when He will return or when this old world will end -- period. This is information that God in His wisdom has withheld from us, and for good reason. As Christians, as followers of Christ’s teachings, we should accept at face value this plain teaching of scripture. Don’t try to predict a date for His return, just be ready. Harold Camping is not following this clear teaching from Jesus. I could stop here, and on this basis alone tell you not to listen to Harold Camping, but I’ll continue.

And so forth and so on...

Please tell us the biblical reason the accept William Miller and the biblical reason the reject Harold Camping.

Once again, this goes to your honesty not your biblical acumen.

Thanks --tg

"Please tell us the biblical reason the accept William Miller and the biblical reason the reject Harold Camping."

TJG, you imply Adventism accepts Wm. Miller's total message. You know this is not accurate. We also take basic truths from Luther, but we don't believe everything he taught was truth (ie. on the Sabbath). Same with Calvin, Wesley, etc. You are to hold fast to what is good.

Camping may have some solid truths (indeed, Adventists would agree with his annihilationism), but you cannot take everything.

Lemuel S.

>>> But an opposing viewpoint doesn't automatically equal a lie

A failure to acknowlege that there are serious opposing viewpoints is a lie.

To present oneself as an expert, and then to failure to acknowlege the issues, is deceit.

/Bevin

"1. Give us the biblical reason to accept William Miller."

Reason to accept what of William Miller?

"2. Give us the biblical reason to reject Harold Camping."

Reason to accept what of Harold Camping?

I understand you are trying to make the "he's wrong so he must also be wrong" argument. As Bryan Bisell provided above, Miller was not the only one to arrive at the 1844/day year conclusions. We only acknowledge Miller because he is so closely tied with our history, not because of his prophetic accuracy. Camping has no relation to Adventism except for the fact he is eager to see the return of Christ. It is only unfortunate that he has to set a time for it.

Lemuel S.

It is quite understandable that sincere and devote Seventh-day Adventists hold fast to the I.J. It holds the keystone of Adventist Theology and the prophetic gifts and founding role of Ellen White in the Adventist Church.

It is also clear why the term Investigative Judgment is losing traction and the term Pre-Advent Judgment is becoming the preferred term.

This issue would be moot if not for the baggage attendant with that view of end-time.
The Church has to deal with a shelf full of does and don;ts that have evoluted with a perverted end-time theology.

In his conclusing chapter of his book Paul: The Apostle of the Heart Set Free F.F. Bruce includes this paragraph by his friend Sir Thomas Taylor a distinquished Schottish lawyer and churchman.

"Justification by Faith means that salvation depends not on sacrament, not on what is done or not done by any priest or presbyter, but on the simple response of the believing heart to the Word of God in Jesus Christ. Observe what this really means, it is not just a theological figment. At one stroke it cut at the root of the whole vast system of sacerdotalism, with its associated doctrine of works--penance, pilgramage--fasting, purgatory and all the rest--------Acceot the doctrine of Justification by Faith and the layman, the common man, at one stride comes into the centre."

So the issue of the Investiative Judgment is merely a ploy to protect an entire faulty premise of a perfect end-time generation and the complex organization which endorses such nonsense.

This endless call to "get ready" Get ready" is a device to hold people to a pietistic life style that even the urger fails to follow. Accepting the finished work of Jesus Christ at the Cross as personal and perfect is as ready as anyone can get.

To prove 1844 is both vain and vanity and has absolutely nothing to do with soteriology or eschatology.

If it were not for the hunfreds of thousands of sincere beievers the entire episode would be indeed a joke. But it is a tragic imposition on the Gospel of Jesus Christ and a serious barrier to a redemptive relationship with Christ as Lord and Master and coming King of Kings. Tom Z

Yes, I think this conversation needs Frank's wisdom. I am very saddened by it. I speak as one who advocates for an open adventist mind and I am hopeful this can/does exist.

Who will answer what possibe difference in our lives and the lives of others for those who believe in 1888 IJ and those who do not? Will we become better Christians?
More loving? More inclusive? More helpful to others? A shining light to the world?

How does believing such a bit of information have a single beneficial affect?

The only ones who are convinced of its truth have yet to tell us even why it should be believed by everyone.

Once again, a thread is monopolized when Kevin &/or Lemuel wax eloquent to support perfectionism w/ the most narrow definitions of Adventist theology. (Kinda Batman & Robin for GYC :)

"1. Give us the biblical reason to accept William Miller's message, and all those connected with Miller, that the world will end on October 22, 1844.

2. Give us the biblical reason to reject Harold Camping's message, and all those connected to Camping, that the world will end on May 21, 2011."

Given those two narrow conditions, both are false. The world wasn't to end in Oct of 1844 anymore then it was to end in May 2011, although personally I believed it could have happened anywhere inbetween those dates.

I don't get the point. If you are trying to imply our existence is a fallacy based on Wm Miller's errors, then all Christian bodies fall into the same category. Calvin taught error and so did Luther.

It can be pointed out categorically from the weight of scriptural evidence that Calvin's predestination is a sham. You may not agree with some of his theology but would you consider him a false prophet or teacher? Or if you agreed with Calvin wholly would you consider Luther a false teacher (since they did not totally agree with each other)?

Kind regards,

Lemuel S.

Lemuel, everyone agrees that there was once a date, Oct. 1844; that is not the question.

Please tell us how anyone can know exactly what CHRIST did, in heaven or that particular date? That is the question no one has yet answered. Here's you chance.

If you can give us the most excellent reasons why it would improve someone's Christianity to believe that something in heaven happened on that date, that is also important, isn't it? Otherwise, what difference could it possibly make?

Lamuel:

Thank you for finally admitting the obvious: William Miller was a false prophet. I'm sure that was a difficult conclusion for you, however, very biblical.

Now please answer this question: Where in scripture are we instructed to follow the teachings of a false prophet? In my previous post I gave scriptural references where we are not to do this.

Please state your answer from scripture. You have a tendency to run down "rabbit trails."

Thanks --tg

Dear Elaine:

You have frankly identified yourself as a secular humanist. What value, then, is there for anyone to try to convince you about anything the Bible teaches? Quite obviously, proving anything to you about Christ's ministry in heaven is impossible, because you aren't even sure there is such a place. This is what happens when liberal theology is turned loose among believers. And it demonstrates yet again why the church cannot tolerate such tendencies among those professing to be part of the body of Christ. Oil and water just can't mix. Christ and Belial cannot be united.

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson

A new low, Kevin. And it can so easily be turned against you, that you believe erroneously in the IJ because you hold to a false new gospel. This is your doctrinal defense of the IJ?!

"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!" Gal 1.8

"It is useless to talk with you about the investigative judgment until you recognize the stark Biblical unfaithfulness of your understanding of the gospel That is your problem. You believe in original sin, justification-alone salvation, a Christ devoid of fallen human proclivities, and the imperfectability of Christian character. All of these teachings contradict the Bible, even though evangelicals both inside and outside Adventism are deceived by them. Once this false gospel is laid aside, the Biblical evidence for the investigative judgment can fairly be considered."

To all participants in the present discussion:

All this talk about whether or not William Miller was a prophet is nonsense. Where have Seventh-day Adventists ever made such a claim for him? William Miller was no more a prophet than Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Wesley, or such contemporary figures as F.F. Bruce and Philip Yancey. Yet any number of these figures are accepted as having authority by any number of folks on this forum, though admittedly with reservations. The same holds true for the way I and other conservative Adventists regard William Miller.

Had I lived in Miller's time, I would like to believe I would have discerned the Biblical truth of his understanding of the time prophecies, while recognizing the folly of setting a date for the return of Christ. But that is hindsight speaking.

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson

Kevin waves a white flag!

Pardon my unintentional misstatement above!! I meant "new low," not "new love." Quite different!!

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson

Elaine....thanks for bringing questions back to what I had asked previously. I see an oft repeated pattern here. Pretend you didn't hear it and dive down a rabbit trail. These are not difficult questions; they are very simple and basic.

Lets keep it basic and simple for the masses and then we can move out from there into the finer details for the super intelligent. To me this makes sense. We are spending centuries protecting our doctrine with Adventese language but how can it be translated so that the people in the masses can recognize that this is something that can at least give them pause.

Forget about debating this with leading theologians, what is the mass appeal, or like I asked before...is this something that only the few elite within adventism can appropriate and thus this is again only a little flock deal

I agree with Kevin Paulson's proposal to make the IJ it's own thread. I think it is unfortunate that so many of spectrum's articles veer of course from the original discussion. I must admit I was tempted to jump in on the IJ debate as well esp because Cliff's book "1844 Made Simple" was so significant for me in my own journey. Maybe we could get Cliff back on here engaging in such a discussion.

Also I would love to hear a thoughtful rebuttal to the 9 points that I listed above concerning the literal reading of Genesis. These involve what I consider to be serious implications. I have not seen good counterpoints to these implications, though I am sure there has been articles addressing such points. If Genesis cannot be taken literally I don't see how any of the bible can be taken seriously. That is perhaps a radical statement and certainly will sound dogmatic to some....but show me how there is an alternative in light of the implications of the 9 points I listed yesterday. Understanding how people process logic, that come from a different point of view, is what I value most about Spectrum.

A Progressive Conservative

Kevin M

Pastor Paulson:

You state: "All this talk about whether or not William Miller was a prophet is nonsense."

Not according to scripture:

But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, is to be put to death. You may say to yourselves, “How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD?” If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously, so do not be alarmed." Deut. 18:20-22.

William Miller ruined the lives of thousands of people because he did not heed the clear word of God. According to scripture, this is anything but "nonsense." It is a clear teaching from scripture not to follow a false prophet. Lamuel has already admitted that William Miller was a false prophet. Please state for the record where do you stand on this issue in the context of Deut. 18:20-22.

Thanks -- tg

Horatio's story of how Cliff Goldstein came to believe the IJ is too close to this . . .

"One of the foundations of Mormonism is its insistence that a person seek the truth by praying for a private, special revelation from the Holy Spirit.
...
What they receive is sometimes called a burning in the bosom as a confirmation of truth. Mormons frequently appeal to James 1:5 for this, especially given that their founder, Joseph Smith, claimed that this was the verse and method he used for finding the truth. This is often accompanied by the insistence that one suspend judgment of his or her religion (even in the face of its historical and theological problems) until he or she has read the Book of Mormon and received, by prayer, a special revelation from the Holy Spirit of its truthfulness."

http://www.mormonwiki.org/Burning_in_the_bosom

Lamuel:

I wrote:
1. Give us the biblical reason to accept William Miller's message, and all those connected with Miller, that the world will end on October 22, 1844.

2. Give us the biblical reason to reject Harold Camping's message, and all those connected to Camping, that the world will end on May 21, 2011.

You responded:
Given those two narrow conditions, both are false. The world wasn't to end in Oct of 1844 anymore then it was to end in May 2011.."

From your response, I conclude that you believe William Miller is a false prophet. This conclusion is supported by scripture. Therefore, you are in-line with the bible.

Thanks -- tg

Jan Long,

I want to ask you this.

Do you believe, from a literal (not your own) reading of the Bible that God is for what you consider an "opening" of the mind? Please explain why or why not from your perspective.

Thanks,

Lemuel S.

Kevin's continuing failure to answer my questions speaks for itself.

He clearly deliberately fails to inform his audience of the 2300 and 490 issues, and then thinks that their lack of questions shows he has achieved something.

Welcome to Kevin P's travelling salvation show

/Bevin

"I hope someone can step up to the plate and do better than Lemuel"

God bless you Fay. May you find peace, sister.

In Christ,

Lemuel S.

Dear Bevin:

I'm not sure what question you claim I have not answered. Please repeat the question if you still think I haven't answered it. But most assuredly, I have repeatedly addressed in my public ministry the issues surrounding the 2,300 and 490-day prophecies, and have in fact conducted seminars specifically devoted to these topics. I have always been open to addressing these challenges.

Again, I am not sure precisely which question of yours I have not answered. Kindly repeat the question if I still haven't addressed it.

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson

Nooooooo...! No new thread devoted to the IJ! No old thread taken hostage, either. It'd simply be more same old-same old.

All we've gotten here, from two of its most enthusiastic supporters, are their assertions of the IJ's exclusively biblical basis. When asked for evidence, it isn't given, but claims are made that it has been given, other places, other times. Then we proceed to nailing the problem--the questioners are not spiritual or orthodox enough to understand. Voila!

And, yes, Kevin, I've read your material, & it's not the evidence you insist it is. You dismiss thorny questions/points cavalierly. Not good scholarship, & not convincing.

I haven't had the interest to delve into the nuts and bolts of this thread but the lack of thinking in the self congratulatory meta-conversation is maddening. One the one hand we have the anti IJ Adventists declaring themselves winners because pro IJ Adventists fail to speak in the language of academia, bashing the other side for not holding to Sola Scriptura (especially ironic coming from those sympathetic to evolution) not thinking for a second that people all the time sincerely hold to Sola Scriptura and come to opposing conclusions. Then, of course, on the pro IJ side we hear about how the other side is wrong because they are reading the Bible through a sinful humanistic hermeneutic. One can only hope there's more logic from all of you in the actual debate.

Kevin, here I repeat the original set of questions...

-----

1) when you present the day-year principle in your evangelistic crusades, do you point out to your audience that the word in Dan 8:14 is NOT "day", is NOT the same phrase as in Gen 1, and has a meaning that is unclear to the experts?

2) when you present the 70 7's, do you point out to your audience that the word is NOT "weeks", only appears in this section of the Bible, and is understood by some experts as meaning a period of 7 years without any need for a day-year principle?

3) do you point out that it is not clear that the 490 and the 2300 begin simultaneously?

4) do you discuss that "cleansed" is dubious translation, and what the issues are?

-----

You say that you address the issues. To be frank, I doubt that you do. I expect you fail to correctly describe the issues, deliberately down play their strength, and exagerate the strength of your response.

I looked at the web artlcle you pointed me to - it does not address the issues. If you think it does, that would simply show how poorly you understand them.

/Bevin

@Lemuel Sapian, you ask, “Do you believe, from a literal (not your own) reading of the Bible that God is for what you consider an "opening" of the mind? Please explain why or why not from your perspective.”

______

I operate from the premise that we were created with minds for a reason, and that we respect the Creator by using the mind responsibly. There is a whole lot that could be said here about methodology, etc., but I will save that for the appropriate thread.

*************************************

@ David Read
Quite a ways up the thread, David and I started a small conversation and for anyone following that and needing a recap, here it is:

1. David proposed that Church doctrine regarding Genesis is based on sola scriptura (his phraseology here was “the word of God alone”).
2. I reminded Dave that the Church has never been strictly sola scripura, and I offered up GRI as evidence of this.
3. David responded that SDA doctrine on Genesis came from the Bible, not scientific data.

On David’s last point, we are in essential agreement. However, the original source for this doctrine is not proof that the Church operates on the basis of sola scriptura. If the Church was truly sola scriptura it would not matter one whit what sort of scientific data existed. The fact that GRI exists and that the Church spends millions on scientific research is prima facia evidence that the Church considers sources aside from Scripture.

Bevin said, "'cleansed' is dubious translation." I would submit that Bevin's assertion is dubious. It has been shown that cleansed is a valid translation of the Hebrew word in question. The fact that some disagree is no reason to call the translation "dubious."

"The fact that GRI exists and that the Church spends millions on scientific research is prima facia evidence that the Church considers sources aside from Scripture."

Jan,

You certainly aren't suggesting that GRI has the ability to dictate and/or change Church doctrine are you?

Lemuel S.

Jan, again, the GRI was not founded to help the church formulate a doctrine of origins, or to modify the church's pre-existing doctrine of origins. No part of GRI's mission has to do with establishing or modifying doctrine.

If the director of GRI were to approach the GC president and say, "we think the earth is old, and we think the SDA Church should try to incorporate old earth geology into its beliefs" or words to that effect, the GC president will simply say, "go back to the drawing board" or words to that effect. According to Ronald Numbers in "The Creationists," that very scenario actually took place between (if hazy memory serves--I don't have the book at hand) Richard Ritland and Robert Pierson. So your conception of the role of GRI has actually been repudiated historically, and I imagine the exact same thing would happen again if James Gibson were to approach Ted Wilson with the same message.

It seems that GRI's commission is somewhat vague. However, I believe that GRI was founded to develop a scientifically rigorous model of earth history along biblical lines. The idea would be develop a biblically-based alternative model that is catastrophic (as opposed to uniformitarian or Lyellian) and creationistic (as opposed to evolutionary or Darwinian). I think most of the church leadership would agree that that should be, and should always have been, GRI's role.

Problems with the SDA interpretation of the 2300 days and 1844:

1. - The Roman empire (or anything else Roman) did not come out of one of the four section of Alexander's empire as it was divided between his four generals. (That's where the Little Horn came from).

2. - The little horn had to have started its work of desecration in the Temple after Alexe's empire was divided in 301 BC. That makes 457 BC impossible since the Little Horn couldn't have started working before it came into power - doesn't make sense.

3. - There was no decree in 457 BC to rebuild the Temple.

4. - Cleansed is actually "restored" - a completely different Hebrew word, used no where else in the OT, and that includes the sections on the sanctuary being "cleansed".

Need more?

Kevin Paulson quotes: "Depart from Me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels." Matthew 25:41
If this was the only Bible text I ever read, I'd conclude that Satan and his angels will be forever burning, and cursed, so will I. Is this obviously literal, obviously metaphor?

Foolish me!! I meant to quote Jude 7 as saying "eternal fire." Hopefully, my own fallibility as a communicator is not a problem here!!

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson

Pastor Paulson:

You write: "In the simplest words, William Miller was right on the date but wrong on the event."

How do you know this?

There is no biblical support for your conclusion. Without human observation of the “event” how can the “correctness” of the date be established? The bible gives no examples of this. There is no “correct” prophetic date connected to a wrong “event.” This is a foreign teaching to scripture. The Jehovah Witnesses do the same thing. After many failed prophecies predicting Christ’s return, they finally ended up with the year 1914. They teach that Jesus did “return” in 1914 – but you can’t see Him. We do the same with October 22, 1844. We teach this date is correct – but you can’t see it.

The conclusion that October 22, 1844 is “correct” but the “event” is wrong fails because Prophecy, in the context we are discussing, is given for our observation to increase our faith. Jesus says: "Now I tell you before it comes, that when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am he" (John 13:19). Here, Jesus tells us very clearly the purpose of prophecy. If we, or any generation, cannot observe a prophecy’s fulfillment, how can that increase our faith? It can’t. Therefore, its serves no purpose. October 22, 1844 is a supposed prophecy "fulfilled" in heaven, outside of human observation. Because of this, this teaching is contrary to the very purpose of prophecy. There is no biblical basis to conclude that any prophecy is/was fulfilled outside of human observation. As I said, this is a foreign teaching to scripture.

Here are the words of William Miller:
"We expected the personal coming of Christ at that time; and now to contend that we were not mistaken, is dishonest. We should never be ashamed frankly to confess our errors. I have no confidence in any of the new theories that grew out of that movement, namely, that Christ then came as the Bridegroom, that the door of mercy was closed, that there is no salvation for sinners, that the seventh trumpet then sounded, or that it was a fulfillment of prophecy in any sense." History of the Advent Message, p. 410, 412.

Why won't you believe him?

Thanks -- tg

I am amazed at the time that "posters" on this site have. I wish I had such time. Would comment, but the idea has long since moved up.
For Beth, there is an excellent book on Ge. 2 and 3 that answers some of the questions raised: The Trial of Innocence by one who believes it a myth, but respects the text.
For Sirje,
1.The little horn comes from one of the four winds, not one of the four divisions of Alexander's empire. It is a noun gender thing.
2.your assumption is that the "vision" of vs. 13 compasses only that of the little horn. But the Hebrew word for "vision" there refers to the whole vision from the beginning with the ram.
3. Since the vision referred to is the whole, the date 457 BC is included as mentioned in chapter 9:25, the rebuilding and restoring of Jerusalem, not the temple.
4. The Hebrew word nisdaq occurs only once as noted. Therefore other sources have to be checked etc. In favor of "cleansed" however are all the ancient versions. The Septuagint, etc. The translation cleansed is therefore not without merit, and quite acceptable.
The church answered many of the objections voiced here in the Daniel and Revelation Committee Series. It can be hard slogging, but is an excellent source for those interested in the IJ.
Series. These books can be heavy slogging, but are excellent sources for question on 1844, IJ.

Allen Shepherd, The little horn pushes to the south, the east, and toward the Beautiful Land. For Rome that is south, east, and east!
Dan 8:13 (NIV) "How long will it take for the vision to be fulfilled - the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, the rebellion that causes desolation and the sanctuary and the host that will be trampled underfoot?"
The question is entirely about the little horn's activities. 8:14 gives that curious time period, then the sanctuary desolated by the little horn will be reconsecrated. So what are the dates for the little horn's activities? It started well after 457BC.

Klimber, I see nothing in Genesis about "scientists" of Noah's day ridiculing the idea of rain. I think that idea came from somewhere else. Don

George, I somewhat get the argument that it's a non-issue even if I disagree. It's somewhat odd, however, for you to be making that case. You seem to have gotten awfully worked up for what you consider a non-issue. If it's a non-issue why not just let Adventists believe it and move on with life? As to what the other denominations think, I imagine they spend virtually no time thinking about Adventists. We're pretty insignificant to the minds of the larger world, which is why I'm always puzzled by people who hate the church and are obsessed with blogging about it. Why not just move on.

Alex,

The counters ARE messed up! We've seen several complaints about them, and we have said that is because other people are online at the same time and users are seeing the effect of multiple votes at once. Hitting refresh before voting should eliminate the confusion. I've made this argument myself to others who complained. Now it is happening to me in a way that is unambiguous...

I noticed funny voting behavior this evening. So I did experiments where I refreshed the page immediately before voting, voted as soon as page redisplayed, then refreshed afterwards. The results show that there is some very strange behavior going on here. Here is what I got on several experiments done on 12/16/2011 at around 8:50 PM CST:

Bille's post 12/14/2011 - 03:33
After initial refresh: 36 up, -16 down
After I clicked the UP arrow: 38 up, -15 down (my vote increased up by 2 and reduced down by 1)
After I hit refresh again: 38 up, -15 down

Sirje's post 12/14/2011 - 04:06
After initial refresh: 41 up, -13 down
After I clicked the UP arrow: 42 up, -13 down
After I hit refresh again: 41 up, -13 down (my vote disappeared!)

Kevin Paulson's post 12/14/2011 - 06:54
After initial refresh: 20 up, -22 down
After I clicked the DOWN arrow: 21 up, -23 down (my vote caused both up and down to increment by one)
After I hit refresh again: 20 up, -22 down (my vote disappeared)
I waited a minute and refreshed again; it was still 20 up, -22 down.

Paulson's post 12/14/2011 - 07:15
After initial refresh: 14 up, -37 down
After I clicked the DOWN arrow: 14 up, -38 down
After I hit refresh again: 14 up, -37 down (my vote disappeared!)

Maggie's post 12/14/2011 - 08:08
After initial refresh: 23 up, -10 down
After I clicked the UP arrow: 24 up, -10 down
After I hit refresh again: 23 up, -10 down (my vote disappeared)

Paulson's post 12/14/2011 - 09:27
After initial refresh: 13 up, -34 down
After I clicked the DOWN arrow: 13 up, -35 down
After I hit refresh again: 13 up, -34 down (my vote disappeared)

I noticed that after the last refresh in each instance, where my vote had disappeared, both arrows were active again, and I could vote again. But upon hitting refresh after each time, it went back to the same condition, as if I had never voted.

Next, I did experiments where I hit refresh, immediately voted, then voted on the NEXT post immediately also, then hit refresh. I now got further weirdness in voting. Here is an example to illustrate:

Bill Garber's post 12/14/2011 - 12:38
After initial refresh: 23 up, -7 down
After I clicked the UP arrow: 24 up, -7 down
(no refresh after voting)

Kevin Paulson's post 12/14/2011 - 11:37
Initial value (I didn't refresh): 15 up, -13 down
After I clicked the UP arrow (yes, I gave Kevin a point on this one as he is technically correct, LOL): 16 up, -13 down
After I hit refresh again: 15 up, -13 down (my vote disappeared)
Also, my vote on Bill Garber's post had now disappeared as well, with it showing 23 up, -7 down.

As already noted, when the refresh is done, it allows me to vote again, but that vote still won't "stick" after I hit refresh again.
Interestingly enough, though, if I wait awhile (about 5 minutes), then hit refresh, and revisit the posts above, it shows for Garber 24 up and -7 down, and for Paulson, 16 up and -13 down. It appears that my vote DOES take effect after a time delay. Neither arrow is greyed out, however, suggesting that I can vote again. However, when I do so (voting the same way as before), then the arrow becomes greyed out but no change in the vote count is displayed.

I offer this as documentation in support of what others have claimed, that there is something wrong with the voting system. However, it appears that perhaps this is just a transient phenomenon, not related to the need to refresh, but rather to some latency between client and server and inconsistency in how results are displayed on the client's screen.

I'm using Internet Explorer 9 on Windows 7 machine.

We are having some issues with page caching, and apparently it is affecting the vote counters also. Caching of pages allows the site to handle more volume and we have been tweaking things to decrease some of the pressure. There have also been problems noted with new comments not showing up immediately in the 'Recent List'. It will take more fiddling to get these kinks straightened out and also to maintain stability. The basic problem is that we have grown to capacity on this box without some more sophisticated tuning and getting the tuning correct is a bit trial and error. - website editor

Jan Long

In your post about cognitive dissonance you make some statements I can find some common ground with you on. I agree mostly with points 1-4, but I think your analysis in point number 5 is lacking.

In your first point you say “We are all finite, and we need to marinate in that reality.” I concur 100%

In your second point you say, “Humans face life by creating narratives that attempt to explain reality.”

I agree. Famous mythologist Joseph Campbell has written extensively about this and was best know for his work in comparative mythology and comparative religion. However if you imply that the bible is the the same as all of the other human narratives, meaning it is no more inspired than greek mythology for instance...I would disagree. Campbell himself noted that the bible is unique in certain aspects of its narrative. My father has written a book that has chapters discussing these anomalies that Campbell noted. Campbell didn’t quite know what to make of them and called them “an interesting twist.” The aspect that I personally believe makes the bible authoritative is that it makes the claim that it is “God Breathed” in other words it does not have its origin of inspiration in man, man was simply the instrumentality God used to express His thoughts.

I am in complete agreement with your 3rd and 4th points.

Where I disagree with you is your 5th point. I will discuss your sub points a and c because I agree completely with your point b.

You say, “We come to the fork in the road at this point, as we have choices. a. We can be “so settled into truth” that we shut our minds to any and all data or modifications to narrative that vary from the old and familiar. Essentially we can simply close our minds.”

I disagree. Why do we have to “close our minds” when we become settled into the truth? It is natural for one to believe for various reasons that their belief system is correct and be confidently settled in the belief...yet if confronted with irrefutable evidence to the contrary still be open to change their opinion. In fact there is many examples of this. Here is a link to 5 examples of prominent evolutionists who were “settled” in their belief system who became young earth creationists http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/ I am sure there are many examples of the opposite as well, creationists who have a paradigm shift and become full blow evolutionists. We should be close minded to irrational thought, not evidence. I am close minded to merging evolution with creation because they are mutually exclusive and for me an attempt to merge them together is irrational. You seem to believe that any position except the moderate position is dogmatic which brings me to your sub point c.

You say , c. “Between these two extremes is a lot of middle ground. One possibility is to maintain respect for the traditional narrative yet remain open. When outside evidence challenges traditional understanding, it is possible to hold onto the old, yet recreate the paradigm in such a way that it becomes a fresh, living and dynamic reality—not a settled reality.”

The middle ground is not always the best ground. This is after all what characterizes lukewarmness. Elijah said, “How long will you waver between two opinions” Joshua said, “Choose you this day whom you will serve” Moses said, “I have set before you blessings and curses, choose life that you may live” Jesus said, “No one can serve two masters.” Many times finding the middle ground is good like when I want Mexican and my wife wants Mediterranean and we settle for Indian. But finding a middle ground between Evolution and Creation doesn’t work like that because theistic evolution means design by chance... its impossible.

Jan I am in partial agreement with your point number 6 and in which you say, “Finally, I also recognize that on some points, conflicting position can be difficult to integrate into a systematic whole. When this happens, if we are open, we have no choice but to live with temporary ambiguity in the hope that future light will clarify the reality.”

However we also have the choice within an open belief system to have intellectual integrity and join a belief system more congruent to the evidence we see. That would be a very valid option an intellectually open and honest thing to do. Nonetheless I agree with you that at times we may have to live with “temporary ambiguity in the hope that future light will clarify the reality.” We will always have questions, and not all of our questions will have immediate answers. That is why it is so important to be humble as you mentioned and then be willing to follow the truth wherever it leads.

Happy Sabbath

A Progressive Conservative

Kevin M

"...I'm always puzzled by people who hate the church and are obsessed with blogging about it. ."

John, I almost agree with you on this one. However, people who "hate the church" usually leave and don't care anymore. The "haters" quickly disappear and we don't hear from them that often.

Then there are those who "question" certain things in the church - and I must confess and make it public that I include myself in this one group! We end up kind of being actually hated by the "conformists" ourselves, only because we "dare" to ask questions, and to challenge certain things that sometimes are not that reasonable or logic in church.

But we stay anyway. We went through some difficult times in church in the past and ended up developing the skill of not allowing the issues to get to us. We can deal with the "ideas" without attacking others on a personal basis. I know that sometimes we can slip - of course - but it doesn't mean that we intent to hurt others' feelings.

Can you imagine how tedious, boring, and dull it would be for the "conformists" if we were not around in these blogs? Probably there would be no blogs at all! How bad would that be? That would be very sad, don't you think?

"Can you imagine how tedious, boring, and dull it would be for the "conformists" if we were not around in these blogs? Probably there would be no blogs at all! How bad would that be? That would be very sad, don't you think?"

I have to cede it to you, you have a good point. I am completely in favor of fighting to see the church change and improve itself. I'm just a bit puzzled at those who hang out and ridicule believing in the Bible or seem to have a beef with Seventh-day Adventists for believing in Adventism. However, I appreciate your attempt to improve the church even if I may end up disagreeing with the direction, everybody's input is welcome.

Maggie:
Have you never read anything concerning the Day of Atonement within the OT sanctuary service? This answers the above question on whether or not Christ's work was finished at the cross. Just look at the OT sanctuary service and you will see that the sacrifice (Christ's death on the cross), did not by itself make atonement for the sins of the people. It was the priest who also made atonement for the people (Lev. 4:13-20 and see John 20:17-the priest had to be as perfect as morally and ceremonially possible, not defiled in order to effectively minister for the people. The only thing Christ does not have to do that the OT priest had to do was atone for his own sins).
The priests responsibility to offer atonement started AFTER the death of the sacrificial animal (Lev 10:16-19, portrayed after an incident that involved the death of Aaron's two disobedients sons).
So no, Christ's work was not finished at the cross.

"So no, Christ's work was not finished at the cross." -- Nathan H
-------------------------------
So Nathan, when Christ said "It is finished" just before He died, just what was He referring to? (See John 19:30)

Allen Shepherd,
Thank you for your reply but I remain unsatisfied. Dan 8:13 specifically mentions the little horn's activities. If the question refers to the whole vision, then the SDA interpretation of vs 14 starts at a point after the start of the ram, with a date of no great significance to the Medes and Persians, then finishes with an invisible event that only SDAs know about, and which is completely divorced from the little horn's actions. What is there in the vision to suggest it is about an IJ? The interpreting angel never mentioned it, a curious omission if the event is so important.

(Jan Long - Fri, 12/16/2011 - 21:38 said in response to Kevin McGill.)

"You say that you are close minded about "merging evolution with creation because they are mutually exclusive" and I acknowledge problems. But let me probe your thinking a little bit. Do you deny the existence of natural selection in nature, or that changes occur through mutation? These are concepts that describe what is actually observed in nature, and is the heart of the evolutionary process. If you acknowledge these two realities, then you are an evolutionist by definition. How far we can take this is an open question and how we mesh this with creation is a further issue."

A great deal of the dissension over this question is due to the problem of what certainly appears to be this being "close minded" when it comes to definitions of terms. This shows up in the steadfast refusal by many to even recognize the difference between "evolution" (as the natural concepts you describe above) and "Evolutionism" (which denotes a naturalistic and often atheistic philosophical school of thought). Theistic Evolutionists (Evolutionary Creationists) are in agreement that this kind of Evolutionism and Creation by God are "mutually exclusive". Even a cursory reading of their material shows that this is up-front and is frequently emphasized as they seek to show how the "Two Books"... The Book of God's Works, and the Book of God's Word can be seen as being in harmony with each other.

"However, those who understand that the creation has been tarnished in certain particular, at least have the capacity to understand that creation has modified in important ways. I have a problem with theistic evolution for it seems doubtful that a God who centers ethical relationship on love, would create a biological world that has an opposite ethic of survival at work."

Until recently I have labeled myself as a "Gradual (or Progressive) Creationist". But the more I have investigated the difference between those who promote these views and those who call themselves Evolutionary Creationists, I have found the latter to be closer (even though not identical) with my own view as an SDA... and for the very reason that you mention ... that they "understand that the creation has been tarnished"... changed even... from God's ideal plan for it. The problem I have with some other forms of Long Chronology Creationism, is that they seem to come mostly from the "Calvinist" position that everything that is is exactly as God *wills* it--in every particular, including the evil we see in our world. OTOH, the Evolutionary Creationist recognizes that evil arose out of the created order itself... a concept that I find in harmony with the Adventist view of evil having its origin in the mind of Lucifer rather than being something that God ordained.

I find the resolution to the ethical problem you describe in our SDA concept of God as being so loving in his dealings with the original sinners (the rebellious angels) that He has allowed them to demonstrate how things would "work" under their "ethical" system. And while it was not in God's plan for evil to arise, the "Plan of Salvation" was made even before He "laid the foundation of the earth".

"Where a lot of people run into problems is conflating the evolutionary process of nature with the question of origins. This is an entirely separate discussion... "

Ah, yes... if only it could be kept to a separate discussion!

Cosmogony and cosmology. So similar in sound: so different in meaning. And conflated so often that even the dictionary does not clearly denote the difference between them.

"These are just a few of my rambling thoughts. Have a good evening."

Thank you for sharing them.

I have to laugh at how nearly all of the posts from the conservative IJ posters always end their pompous remarks with "God Bless!"

At any rate, we all certainly need God's blessing, so I guess its a good thing.

I don't like the idea that it wasn't finished on the cross. Jesus said "It is finished".... I understand the IJ concept that only the sacrifice was finished, not the complete salvation process. But, why isn't it mentioned in the Bible? Paul talks so much about the cross, the power of the cross.... Wouldn't he have mentioned that it wasn't enough?

With all due respect, the SDA folks that I know who buy into perfection theology are the weirdest people. They are super strict, usually judgemental, and downright depressed much of the time. At best, they cannot agree on what sin is-- so how can they know what to overcome? And if its truly possible to live without sinning, and true that God will have a people who are sinless before He comes, then obviously HIs coming is far far off, because I haven't seen or met a perfect person, especially a perfect SDA yet.

I am much more comfortable with Christians who are saved by grace.They are happier, more grateful, and more aware of the gift from God.

I love reading all the posts, and while I'm not well versed in the Daniel prophecies, I want to keep bringing it back to a personal walk. Believing in the IJ keeps me nervous and feeling like a failure. Learning to believe in the grace and gift of eternal life frees me and fills my heart with gratitude and purpose!