How evolutionism destroys SDA theology

[olger]

Gen 5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

Not bad, not bad.

g

[John317]

John, that's not a fair question. The question should be how much should we trust in the interpretation of what was written in the Bible? What I see, is that the bible (the OT) is 100 percent correct and it agrees 100 percent with science. The problem is on how the editors interpreted what is in the bible. This is one reason we should look at the Septuagint for help.

I agree that how we interpret the Bible is important. That's illustrated by the people in Galileo's day believing he contradicted the Bible by championing Copernicanism and teaching that the sun is the center of the universe. Or like Darwin thinking the Bible says that there are no changes or adaptations in the species that God created. If Darwin had been right on that point, he almost certainly wouldn't have jumped to conclusion that the Bible is wrong. So I agree with you that it's important to distinguish between the Bible's teaching and our interpretation of the Bible.

But my point goes to the question of whether we should trust the Bible or trust our senses or human reasoning when there is a clear conflict between these two. That's an important issue to get settled in our minds, don't you think?

For instance, I believe that someday the Devil himself will appear as a shining, beautiful being and will make claims (doubtless on TV and video) that will be impossible to refute. These claims will contradict the New Testament's teachings about the Sabbath. What if the Devil claims to be the resurrected Peter or Paul, and tells us that the sanctity of the Sabbath was transferred to Sunday? Ellen White says that this will happen. Will we believe the Paul and Peter of the NT-- or will we believe the Paul and Peter that we see on the TV screen? Will we know our Bibles well enough to know the difference between truth and lies? Or will we have fundamental doubts about the truth of the Bible so that our faith will fail?

I believe that the decisions we're making now will determine whether we trust the Bible then, or whether we'll trust something or someone else.

[Dr. Rich]

Ok, I tend to agree with you on this. Peoblem is, that 'day' has already arrived --many years ago--right after Jesus left this earth. There had to be a good reason why Jesus warned His disciples in Matthew 24 about this.

[Richard Holbrook]

He wasn't just warning his disciples then. He knew that his words would be carried on down to the end of time. He was saying it for the benefit of the last generation. Remember they asked Jesus about the time of the end, which they thought would be in their day. Jesus knew that it wouldn't.

[Dr. Rich]

I respectfully dissagree.

[Richard Holbrook]

With which part?

[Dr. Rich]

all of what you posted

[phkrause]

Now Now Richard, be nice.

pk

[BobRyan]

He wasn't just warning his disciples then. He knew that his words would be carried on down to the end of time. He was saying it for the benefit of the last generation. Remember they asked Jesus about the time of the end, which they thought would be in their day. Jesus knew that it wouldn't.

Absolutely correct.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

As the discussion of origins on another thread has come to a certain point - I wanted to clarify something here.

My intent in the argument above is not to demonize those who choose evolutionism. Rather it is to look at the doctrines of evolutionism and discuss their direct impact on the SDA FBs.

in Christ,

Bob

[oldsailor29]

Evolutionism denies ... doctrine 6 for it says;

1. God is not the Creator of all things. At best he created the big bang and then let everything else evolve and create itself over billions and billions of years. Thus the "intelligence" of the Creator cannot be seen in a single thing in nature today unless it is done "by faith alone" believing in spite of seeing nothing.

If our faith alone is not strong enough to support our beliefs, then it isn't strong enough to save us, and we need God to give us more faith. (LS Ch. xxx)

Our sinful natures are on an evolutionary spiral - downward. But with the help of the Holy Spirit, our characters can evolve upward. The Holy Spirit can empower us to overcome our temptations. As our natures become more and more sinful, we require more help from the Holy Spirit, until we come to the stage where our natures are totally sinful and where we require the Holy Spirit to dwell within us in full measure, in order to resist temptation. And I believe that's where we are right now.

God is the creator, was the first test of faith, and one which was failed by a third of the angels. Lucifer's argument, that God was a tyrant, was based on that which he and all the other created beings could see. All they could see were the changes which were taking place in the things God created. Lucifer told all the other created beings that God was just the first to evolve, and was holding them back with His laws, from becoming just as glorious as He. Thus Lucifer was the first teacher of existentialism, and this is the basis for all of the nature religions and evolutionism.

It is by faith alone that we have the ability to see through the lies of Satan, for our faith in God is the beginning of wisdom, and the one thing which cannot be threatened by the intelligence of Satan. I think faith in God as the first cause, the one who causes to be, the creator, and faith in God as our redeemer, are the two most important beliefs for mankind.

[skyblue888]

It is commendable to show that creation is more believable than the theory of evolution. However, is it enough to believe in creation and that the Scriptures are the written word of God? If the Holy Scriptures are the written word of God and we accept them as written merely then we are most miserable creatures for "the letter kills." 2 Cor.3:7.

"The Scriptures are to be received as the word of God to us, not written merely but spoken." Ministry of Healing, p.122.

What do you understand this statement to be saying?

sky

[olger]

Good point.

Truth revives.

Doubt kills.

g

[oldsailor29]

It is commendable to show that creation is more believable than the theory of evolution. However, is it enough to believe in creation and that the Scriptures are the written word of God? If the Holy Scriptures are the written word of God and we accept them as written merely then we are most miserable creatures for "the letter kills." 2 Cor.3:7.

"The Scriptures are to be received as the word of God to us, not written merely but spoken." Ministry of Healing, p.122.

What do you understand this statement to be saying?

sky

I don't believe it has been shown that creation is more believable, but that is a personal observation. I believe in creation because of my faith in God and my personal relationship with Him, not because His word is objectively more believable. Faith is totally subjective.

The inspiration for the oral traditions of the Bible is the same as the inspiration for the written word. That inspiration is of divine origin. It is because God inspired His messengers, that their messages are known as the "word of God." Satan cannot have his messengers label his messages the "word of Satan." If he did that, only evil would believe those messages, and evil people are not Satan's primary target. Instead, Satan depends on partial truths and flawed logic for his theology. He teaches those things which can be seen in nature all around us are the extent of that which does exist. His theology is what we know as existentialism. Don't let your lyin' eyes deceive you. Have faith in God. And remember that when truth is mixed with falsehood, the result is falsehood.

Given the choice between that which we can apprehend as truth with our senses and that which we are told is truth by God's messengers, our faith is shown by our choice. For this question, that one choice is enough.

[Guest]

Now I couldn't have said that any better if I had a gun to my head. Probably not as good. I just wish the folks who believe we should give evolution a fair chance would come and look at this logical, simple statement.

Way to go oldsailor.

[Bravus]

I actually agree with oldsailor as well. I have no beef at all with people who are willing to say "I believe that the Bible is a literal account of a literal creation, and that's all the evidence I need to make my decision." More power to such people.

The only beef I have is with people who then feel that it is necessary or appropriate to make 'scientific' attacks on scientific theories, to distort or discount scientific evidence, and so on. If 'spiritual things are spiritually discerned', then the statement above and oldsailor's more elegant version should be the end of the story.

But if people start using 'science' to deceive, I will call them on that, every time.

[Guest]

If 'spiritual things are spiritually discerned', then the statement above and oldsailor's more elegant version should be the end of the story.

Excactly, and I think spiritual things are spiritually discerned.

[olger]

"God has permitted a flood of light to be poured upon the world, in both science and art; but when professedly scientific men treat upon these subjects from a merely human point of view, they will assuredly come to wrong conclusions. It may be innocent to speculate beyond what God's word has revealed, if our theories do not contradict facts found in the Scriptures; but those who leave the word of God, and seek to account for his created works upon scientific principles, are drifting, without chart or compass, upon an unknown ocean. The greatest minds, if not guided by the word of God in their research, become bewildered in their attempts to trace the relations of science and revelation. Because the Creator and his works are so far beyond their comprehension that they are unable to explain them by natural laws, they regard Bible history as unreliable. Those who doubt the reliability of the records of the Old and New Testaments, will be led to go a step farther, and doubt the existence of God; and then, having lost their anchor, they are left to beat about upon the rocks of infidelity." CE

Quote good,

g

[Guest]

AMEN!

[phkrause]

That makes alot of sense Bravus, I would have to also agree.

pk

[phkrause]

Very good quote Olger.

pk

[karl]

OK

Now let's talk about how evolution and socialism go hand in hand.

In blogging on the Spectrum website on the subject of socialism in health care this past week, it gradually occurred to me that the difference between the individualism built into the United States government versus the collectivism built into the government of socialist countries is a difference in worldview which is, in turn, influenced by evolution.

As Christians, we believe that human nature is basically depraved and selfish. Further, we believe it is devolving rather than evolving. Thus we do not allow the collective to victimize the individual. (We are not a democracy, but a constitutional republic in which the laws protect the individual's rights.)

Socialists believe that human nature is basically good and evolving ever higher. Thus they believe collectivism will work because of the basic goodness of people. They believe the collective goodness of society should supercede the rights of the individual.

These are two completely opposite worldviews.

Do you deal with these in the realm of bioethics?

[Dr. Rich]

We can find in Rev. 12 the synopsis or the index of the history and future of the world in a nutshell. Evolution is not part of this picture. But we do see where the serpent attempted to flood the earth with lies (and did a great job with the attempt) but the earth opened up and swallowed this flood. This could mean that evolution is one of those lies and archeology will show (out of the earth) that evolution is a lie. We have found dinosaur tracks along side with mans, so they must have been living at the same time at one time.

But then we have also discovered through archeology that man was civilized all over the earth just 200 years after the birth of Cain and Able. This information would tend to destroy the idea of Adam being the first human on this earth. But it would not destroy what is written in the bible or the Septuagint. It would mean that our interpretation was wrong and we now need to correct it because the bible does agree with science.

[oldsailor29]

(SDA) Perhaps the idea that Adam was first can be saved if we set his creation a few thousand years further in the past.

We can find in Rev. 12 the synopsis or the index of the history and future of the world in a nutshell. Evolution is not part of this picture. But we do see where the serpent attempted to flood the earth with lies (and did a great job with the attempt) but the earth opened up and swallowed this flood. This could mean that evolution is one of those lies and archeology will show (out of the earth) that evolution is a lie. We have found dinosaur tracks along side with mans, so they must have been living at the same time at one time.

But then we have also discovered through archeology that man was civilized all over the earth just 200 years after the birth of Cain and Able. This information would tend to destroy the idea of Adam being the first human on this earth. But it would not destroy what is written in the bible or the Septuagint. It would mean that our interpretation was wrong and we now need to correct it because the bible does agree with science.

[Bravus]

I'm going to post a counterpoint thread to this thread, but since it is in many ways more of an Origins than a theology thread, I'll do it in the Origins forum.