Will Ted Wilson flinch on the creation issue?

[Overaged]

quote=Nic Samojluk]If God created us through a protracted evolutionary process. It means that there was never a moral fall./quote] Why?

"Evolution" teaches that sin gets better; just as it teaches that we get better by "evolving."

The first question to this teaching would be is related to the fact that this kind of teaching negates the need for Jesus and His Sacrifice. If there is "no fall" there is no need for Jesus.

[Nic Samojluk]

Do we need to "examine" the Bible? Do we have the authority to determine whether the Bible is Truth or not? Isn't it rather that we "study" the Bible, learn the Truth in it, and accept that Truth?

The Bible tells us that the noble Bereans, after listening to Saint Paul, decided to study their sacred Scriptures in order to determine whether what had been presented to them was in line with what was contained in their holy writings. The Bible has a long history and has survived the merciless attacks of infidels for many generations.

The writings of Darwin are venerated today by the majority of scholars but may be discarded tomorrow. If Darwin was right, then we should see evidence of bacteria morphing into higher forms of life. This has no scientist ever observed in his laboratory, and I am safe to predict that it will never happen.

Jesus did believe in the existence of Adam and Eve. Darwin tried to make me believe that humanity had an ameba as its ancestor. It takes less faith to believe that humanity is the result of Design than the result of natural selection and accidental genetic mutation.

I have a more credible reason to rely on the one who came from and returned to heaven than the one who came from an ape and died as an ape. My hope of resurrection is based on the one who said: “I am the resurrection and the life.”

Why should I rely on Darwin? He never walked on water; never turned water into wine; never fed five thousand with five loaves of bread; never healed a man born blind; and never brought dead people back to life. What are Darwin’s credentials compared withthat of Moses and Jesus Christ?

[Nic Samojluk]

It appears that these 13 beliefs are taken from a book by Norval F Pease, called "THE GOOD NEWS. Thirteen Vital Points Of Faith."

[Dr. Shane]

They would just adapt to their environments (or die), and in the process they could eventually become different species.

A changing environment will not cause a genetic mutation. Genetic mutation is caused by chance - not a change in environment. A change in environment can cause extinction, but no mutation. That said, a change in environment can cause certain genes to become inactive, but that is not the same as a mutation.

[Overaged]

Nic; which church manual are you talking about here? There were several published.

[Gregory Matthews]

Nic; which church manual are you talking about here? There were several published.

The CHURCH MANUAL can only be revised by a General Conference session. If revised, a new one is published after each session.

The quotation provided by Nic appear to come from the 2005 revision which has both versions of the baptisimal vows. However, one could also find the reference to the 2000 version beginning on page 32 as listed (which does not have the alternative vow. If one wanted to go back to earlier versions one could find it in many--the 1971 version lists the 13 beginning on page 59, while the 1976 version lists it beginning on page 61, etc.

[Nic Samojluk]

I don't know. I don't think anyone believes that. They would just adapt to their environments (or die), and in the process they could eventually become different species. But not elephants or giraffes.

I agree! Of course, a different species is not the same as what in genesis is described as “according to its kind.” The Bible teaches that God created different kinds of animals and that Adam and Eve were the result of a special creation brought to life by God. Darwin, on the contrary, instead of agreeing with this explanation for origins, suggested that we all share a common ancestor which goes back through apes all the way to an ameba.

There is no hard scientific evidence for this common ancestry. If the common ancestry theory were a fact, we should be observing bacteria morphing into higher forms of life. This has never been observed in the laboratory by the disciples of Darwin, and my guess is that this will never be observed by any scientist in the future. Bacteria will continue to exist as bacteria in spite of genetic mutation and its resistance to anti biotic medication.

This is the reason I have opted to explain the evidence used on behalf of a Common Ancestry as evidence for a Common Design. I have discussed this with one of the LSU science teachers and he could not provide me with a reasonable counter argument. I believe that this represents one of the main weaknesses of the theory of evolution. The belief in a common ancestry is the backbone of Darwinian evolution. Since there is no solid, observable evidence for such explanation, I conclude that I need to discard it on behalf of Divine Creation as the most reasonable explanation for origins.

There are many other reasons for rejecting Darwinian evolution, and my hope is that we can identify them and share them with everybody who reads this thread. This is how we can make a humble contribution to the mission our new GC president has chosen for himself and for the church during his presidency.

[Nic Samojluk]

Good question! Because instead of a moral fall by Adam and Eve, living organisms, according to Darwinian evolution, have been evolving from an ameba and through apes all the way to Homo Habilis, Homo sapiens and finally to modern man.

The contrast between these two explanations for origins is painfully clear. The Bible points to a departure from perfection as a result of Adam’s moral fall, while Darwin argues that we have experienced an incredible progress since the first living cell came to life in a pond. If Darwin’s theory is correct, this means that we have done quite well as we moved from a single cell through higher forms of life—including apes—and finally reached the higher forms of existence we observe today.

If Darwin’s theory is correct, what need do we have for repentance, forgiveness, for salvation and a Second Coming. We are doing very well in our progress towards a higher form of existence, and we should be proud of our accomplishments. We have no need to fear for the future or for a mythical Day of Judgment. We are the architects of our own destiny and have no need for any help from above. All we have and are we owe it to Natural Selection and the lucky genetic mutation. Our God is Nature instead of the God of Nature.

If there was no moral fall, there is no need for salvation, for the alleged help Jesus can provide us or for a utopian after life in heaven. This suggests to me that Darwinian teaching has a tendency to minimize and to destroy the need for and the power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I would be foolish to trade what Jesus has to offer for this counterfeit gospel preached by the new breed of Darwinian theorists who offer to me mere trinkets in exchange for the gold contained in Scripture.

[Nic Samojluk]

Originally Posted By: SivartM

quote=Nic Samojluk]If God created us through a protracted evolutionary process. It means that there was never a moral fall./quote] Why?

"Evolution" teaches that sin gets better; just as it teaches that we get better by "evolving."

The first question to this teaching would be is related to the fact that this kind of teaching negates the need for Jesus and His Sacrifice. If there is "no fall" there is no need for Jesus.

Yes, indeed! I say Amen to that.

[Nic Samojluk]

Originally Posted By: SivartM

They would just adapt to their environments (or die), and in the process they could eventually become different species.

A changing environment will not cause a genetic mutation. Genetic mutation is caused by chance - not a change in environment. A change in environment can cause extinction, but no mutation. That said, a change in environment can cause certain genes to become inactive, but that is not the same as a mutation.

Yes. Instead of gaining information what happens in fact is a loss of information or a loss of the ability to use certain genetic information. We see this exemplified in the history of animal breeding.

[Dr. Shane]

Natural selection simply selects species for survival that have beneficial mutations. Natural selection does not cause the mutations. The mutations happen by chance. Natural selection only happens after the mutation has occurred.

[Dr. Shane]

A vegetarian lion in Eden becoming a carnivorous lion after the Fall is an example of an animal adapting to its environment. The lion doesn't actually become another species.

[Nic Samojluk]

Nic; which church manual are you talking about here? There were several published.

[Nic Samojluk]

A vegetarian lion in Eden becoming a carnivorous lion after the Fall is an example of an animal adapting to its environment. The lion doesn't actually become another species.

There is a Video clip going around showing how certain individuals have succeeded in training lions to rely on a vegetarian diet.

[whbae]

How do you know the lions become vegetarians, is there any Bible text supporting this?

Won

[Gregory Matthews]

This is what Nic said:

Quote:

There is a Video clip going around showing how certain individuals have succeeded in training lions to rely on a vegetarian diet.

This is a modern day event. It is well known.

Please do not ask for a Biblical text supporting something that first was documented well into the 1900s--about 1950 as I recall.

The other statement about vegetarian lions in Edon was simply specualtive musing and not reporting an actual fact.

That comment was made by Shane and not Nic. His statement was factually correct.

Here is what Shane said:

Quote:

A vegetarian lion in Eden becoming a carnivorous lion after the Fall is an example of an animal adapting to its environment. The lion doesn't actually become another species.

[Overaged]

Quote:

I could not verify your source. Nevertheless, you might have missed the fact that I did document the source for the 13 baptismal vows I made reference to. They are described as follows:

Various books, manuals, and articles have historically been composed from other, previously existing Adventist-authored materials. But I would like to hear from you the specific volume of Church Manual you are referring to as your source of information for your biopic accusations and anecdotal finger-pointing re the Church and the doctrine of creation.

Quote:

The 'Seventh-day Adventist baptismal vow' is a list of 13 belief statements which a person joining the church is expected to agree to. In Adventist understanding baptism, which is a public display of faith in Christ, is associated with officially joining the Adventist church, which is a part of the community of believers in Christ. The vow is explained in the church manual.[1'] In 2005 an alternate vow consisting of three statements was approved at the General Conference Session.[2]

I did post those 13 baptismal vows. Here is the link for them, and I do not find the doctrine of creation included there. Do you? Do you doubt the authenticity of the document?

Source: http://www.tripatlas.com/Adventist_baptismal_vow

Nic; that's not what I said. I did not question the authenticity of said document; I am however, questioning your "interpretation" of same. But now that you mention it; since when is "tripatlas.com" any kind of reliable reference for Adventist teachings? You only need to go to the source of the teachings, to identify what they believe.

The book I mentioned above by an Adventist - N F Pease, has the same line of beliefs for baptismal vows which was being used by Pastors in my area when I got baptised. They do appear to be exactly the same as you are quoting, so I would like to know which volume of the Church manual you are going by to make your "scholarly pronouncement" on.

Those beliefs , as written by Pease are as follows:

I/ GOOD NEWS ABOUT GOD 9

“Do you believe in God the Father, in His Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Spirit?”

II/ GOOD NEWS FROM CALVARY 20

“Do you accept the death of Jesus Christ on Calvary as the atoning sacrifice for the sins of men, and believe that through faith in His shed blood men are saved from sin and its penalty?”

III/ GOOD NEWS ABOUT SALVATION 28

“Renouncing the world and its sinful ways, have you accepted Jesus as your personal Saviour, and do you believe that God, for Christ’s sake,has forgiven your sins and given you a new heart?”

IV/ GOOD NEWS ABOUT OUR FRIEND IN HEAVEN 37

“Do you accept by faith the righteousness of Christ, recognizing Him as your Intercessor in the heavenly sanctuary, and do you claim His promise to strengthen you by His indwelling Spirit, so that you may receive power to do His will?”

V/ GOOD NEWS ABOUT THE BIBLE 45

“Do you believe that the Bible is God’s inspired word, and that it constitutes the only rule of faith and practice for the Christian?”

VI/ GOOD NEWS FROM SINAI 54

“Do you accept the Ten Commandments as still binding upon Christians; and is it your purpose, by the power of the indwelling Christ, to keep this law, including the fourth commandment, which requires the observance of the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath of the Lord?”

VII/ GOOD NEWS ABOUT THE RETURN OF JESUS 65

“Is the soon coming of Jesus the blessed hope in your heart, and are you determined to be personally ready to meet the Lord, and to do all in your power to witness to His loving salvation, and by life and word to help others to be ready for His glorious appearing?”

VIII/ GOOD NEWS ABOUT GOD’S GIFTS 78

“Do you accept the Biblical teaching of spiritual gifts, and do you believe the gift of prophecy in the remnant church is one of the identifying marks of that church?”

IX/ GOOD NEWS ABOUT THE CHURCH AND ITS MISSION 86

“Do you believe in church organization, and is it your purpose to support the church by your tithes and offerings, your personal effort, and influence?”

X/ GOOD NEWS ABOUT THE BODY GOD GAVE YOU 94

“Do you believe that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit and that you are to honor God by caring for your body, avoiding the use of that which is harmful, abstaining from all unclean foods, from the use,

manufacture, or sale of alcoholic beverages, the use, manufacture, or sale of tobacco in any of its forms for human consumption, and from the misuse of, or trafficking in, narcotics or other drugs?”

XI/ GOOD NEWS ABOUT CHRISTIAN LIFE STYLE 102

“Knowing and understanding the fundamental Bible principles, as taught by the Seventh-day Adventist Church, is it your purpose, by the grace of God, to order your life in harmony with these principles?”

XII/ GOOD NEWS ABOUT BAPTISM 110

“Do you accept the New Testament teaching of baptism by immersion, and do you desire to be so baptized as a public expression of your faith in Christ and in the forgiveness of your sins?”

XIII/ GOOD NEWS ABOUT THE CHURCH AS A PLACE OF WORSHIP AND FELLOWSHIP 117

“Do you believe that the Seventh-day Adventist Church is the remnant church of Bible prophecy, and that people of every nation, race, and language are invited and accepted into its fellowship? Do you desire membership in this local congregation of the world church?”

Originally Posted By: Overaged

Your whole conspiracy theory here Nic is very unrealistic. This is the book, and the 13 beliefs that I was asked to examine to prepare for my baptism, some 22 years ago now. To me, the doctrine of the "literal creation" was very well covered in the #6 belief, identified as follows:

VI/ GOOD NEWS FROM SINAI 54

“Do you accept the Ten Commandments as still binding upon Christians; and is it your purpose, by the power of the indwelling Christ, to keep this law, including the fourth commandment, which requires the observance of the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath of the Lord?”

Quote:

This is a reference to the Ten Commandments and to the Sabbath. Where is the doctrine of creation with a reference to the seven literal days of creation?

Incase you missed the reference to those "seven literal days of creation;" it is enveloped in, and protected by, and declared by the Sabbath doctrine. I am not sure how you could overlook this in your diatribe and suspicions about the Church. If you were to read pg 54-65 in Pease's book; or in the pages following this vow in the Church manual; you would have no choice but to recant what you are trumpeting about our new Conference President.

[Nic Samojluk]

How do you know the lions become vegetarians, is there any Bible text supporting this?

[Nic Samojluk]

Various books, manuals, and articles have historically been composed from other, previously existing Adventist-authored materials. But I would like to hear from you the specific volume of Church Manual you are referring to as your source of information for your biopic accusations and anecdotal finger-pointing re the Church and the doctrine of creation.

I was not able to locate the particular version of the Church Manual the list was taken from. I did explain to you why I copied the list of 13 baptismal vows from said source: because the 2005 17th edition of the Church Manual did not allow me to copy and paste the document. This is the reason I resorted to a secondary source which did allow me to copy and paste the document.

It is an older version of the baptismal vow, but it is almost 100 percent identical to the 2005 version. If you examine both versions you will discover that there is no specific reference to the doctrine of creation in them. Creation is implied by the fact that there is a reference to the Decalogue and to the Sabbath, but no direct treatment of the doctrine of creation, and much less a reference to literal days of 24 hour each.

I concluded from this, that this is probably the reason why liberal Adventists have a preference for said list of 13 baptismal vows over the shorter version of three vows, and this explains to me why the shorter version of the baptismal vows were created. It was an attempt by conservative Adventist to include the doctrine of creation in a more explicit manner among the vows, since vow # 2 makes a reference to our Fundamental Belief # 6 which deals with our traditional doctrine of creation.

Here is the link to the 2005 version of our baptismal vow. I cannot copy and paste it here, but you can verify the accuracy of what I am saying by clicking on it and reading it yourself. I have no idea why you are insisting that I locate the older version of the church Manual. This could be accomplished by visiting one of our University libraries. I have no interest in doing this for the simple reason that it is totally irrelevant to the point I tried to make.

http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/church-manual/Seventh-day-Adventist-Church-Manual-17th-edition.pdf

[Overaged]

I was not able to locate the particular version of the Church Manual the list was taken from. I did explain to you why I copied the list of 13 baptismal vows from said source: because the 2005 17th edition of the Church Manual did not allow me to copy and paste the document. This is the reason I resorted to a secondary source which did allow me to copy and paste the document.

[Nic Samojluk]

I did not question the authenticity of said document; I am however, questioning your "interpretation" of same. But now that you mention it; since when is "tripatlas.com" any kind of reliable reference for Adventist teachings? You only need to go to the source of the teachings, to identify what they believe.

[Nic Samojluk]

To me, the doctrine of the "literal creation" was very well covered in the #6 belief, identified as follows:

[Nic Samojluk]

I am not sure how you could overlook this in your diatribe and suspicions about the Church.

[Nic Samojluk]

Of course. Nothing like a mysterious disappearance or unavailability of credible evidence to make your point is there Nic?