To perform a search, click on ==> Search

Understanding Genesis

by Nic Samojluk

Note: In order to place the following dialogue in its proper perspective, you nead to read what took place before. It started with a book review by Dr. Sean Pitman dealing with Genesis. To read what went before, click on the following Internet link: ==>

The Meaning of Adventism

Sean:

As you explain yourself in greater detail, the more I think I am slowly figuring out the central focus of the differences between us.

Just to make sure I understand, may I state what I think three of yours assumptions are?

1. The most important thing about Adventism is its unique doctrines.

2. The only valid reason for the Adventist Church to exist is if it is a doctrinally unique organization.

3. The only valid reason for anyone wishing to join or remain a member of the Adventist Church is if he/she believes all of its doctrines.

Have I expressed correctly your beliefs on these three points? Words and their meanings are important, but if we don't use them the same way they may be a hindrance to mutual understanding. Each word I use here was chosen carefully. If any word does express your position exactly, please correct me.

I wish to make sure I understand your position as accurately as possible. Thank you for helping me in doing that.

Cheers,

Erv

The Meaning of Adventism According

to Sean Pitman

Hey Erv,

All unique viable growing organizations have unique "doctrinal" positions that separate or make them different from everyone else. All vital organizations play up these key differences in order to attract people to join their group vs. the option of joining some other group. Without something uniquely beneficial to offer, what do you have to sell your organization in comparison to something else? Without having some uniqueness your organization it becomes stale and generic.

So yes, what makes the SDA Church unique are its unique doctrines. Without these unique doctrines the SDA Church would not be really different than some other church country club or even society in general. I mean really, why call yourself an SDA vs. a Baptist, Catholic, Presbyterian, Lutheran, non-denominational Christian or even a basically good person?

More specifically, yes, the only valid reason for the SDA Church to exist as a unique entity is because of its unique doctrines. Someone comes and asks you, "Why should I go to your church vs. some other church or the country club down the road?" You may respond that our church is friendly, all-inclusive, non-judgemental, and a close-knitt community. So are a lot of communities. Even some communities of drug addicts and non-religous hippies could be described like this. Is our church all about freedoms without any restraint or judgement? - the equal promotion of all ideas and actions? - free love, free drugs, free spirit? Rather, it seems that true freedom involves rules and regulations, doctrines if you will, which are freely chosen or accepted and self-impossed.

Now, you seem to emphasize the word "all" - as in one should not join the SDA Church unless one accepts all the stated "fundamental" positions of the SDA Church. I would say that this is a good rule of thumb. At the very least one should accept the most basic of the stated fundamental beliefs, especially the most unique ones and basic ones, in order to present one's self honestly as a member of the SDA Church "in good standing".

I mean really, what percentage of the stated fundamental beliefs of any organization do you think one should accept before thinking one's self clear to represent that organization? Lets consider your own beliefs. How many of the stated fundamental beliefs of the SDA Church, as stated, do you personally believe and support? (see Link)

You don't believe that the Bible is a "trustworthy record of God's acts in history" - because you see no good evidence for God's existence at all (#1).
You don't really see any evidence for God's existence by your own admission, so how can you see any real evidence to support a belief in a trinity (#2), God the Father (#3), God the Son and His Divinity (#4) or God the Holy Spirit (#5) ?
If you don't see evidence of God's very existence, you really can't support any aspect of fundamental belief #5 (Creation statement), as in the notion that there is any evidence that God created anything and you actively oppose the specific position of the SDA Church that life on this Earth was created in six literal days in recent history.
You believe in hundreds of millions of years of death and suffering on this planet so how can you believe that the moral fall of man made mankind "subject to death"? (#6)
If you don't see evidence for God's existence, how then can you believe that "All humanity is now involved in a great controversy between Christ and Satan regarding the character of God"? (#7).
If you see no evidence for the existence of God, how can you believe in the resurrection of Jesus? (#9).
If you see no evidence for the existence of God, how can you believe in the "Experience of Salvation"? (#10) in the divine power needed to "Grow in Christ"? (#11) or in the Church as a "community of believers who confess Jesus Christ as the incarnate Word, Lord and Saviour"? (#12).
I highly doubt that you believe that the SDA Church is part of God's unique "Remnant" Church whose job it is to "announce the arrival of the judgment hour, proclaim salvation through Christ, and herald the approach of His second advent (#13) .
You probably do believe in a kind of "Body of Christ" (#14), but in a way that does not really make any clear delineation between body and non-body as far as I can tell.
If you see no evidence for the existence of God, how can you believe that the Baptism is a symbol of death and resurrection? (#15), the Lord's Supper as remembrance of Christ's death "until he comes again"? (#16), spiritual gifts that include healing and prophecy given as a supernatural act of God (#17 &18)
You probably believe in at least the last 6 of the Ten Commandements (#19), but not the first four if you don't have evidence of God's existence and certainly not the Fourth Commandment as stated in #20.
You probably do believe in some form of Stewardship as stated in #21, Christian Behavior as in #22, and Marriage and Family #23.
I'm sure you don't believe in the Sanctuary message (#24).
If you don't believe in evidence for God's existence, how can you believe in the Second Comming of Christ? (#25) the resurection of the dead? (#26), the millennium where the "wicked dead are judged"? (#27) or the New Earth (#28).

So, from what I think I know of you, you seem to be pretty solid on about 4 and a half of the 28 stated fundamental beliefs of the SDA church - - and you call yourself a good representative of the SDA Church? How are any of the beliefs which you actually hold to be true unique to the SDA Church either individually or collectively compared to the beliefs of other churches or non-denominational Christians or even completely non-religious people who are otherwise decent, friendly, law-abiding folk who love their families and communities?

You see, you really aren't any different from non-SDA societies in your basic beliefs. There isn't anything to really set you apart from even non-religious communities of good people who create nice friendly country clubs. That's fine and good and all - it just isn't SDA.

I'm not sure why you call yourself SDA? You do know that when you represent yourself as an SDA people who do not already know you think that you actually believe at least most of the most fundamental beliefs of the SDA Church. That is why many groups ask you to speak at their schools and churches - because they think you are actually an SDA doctrinally. This is a misrepresentation of yourself and you know it. Why do you do it then? Why not call yourself a "social Adventist who doesn't really believe any of the key fundamental beliefs"? You'd at least be advertizing yourself correctly then and not be accurately accused of being a "wolf in sheeps clothing".

Was I really that unclear the first several times I made these statements?

Sean

"I Now Understand Your Position!"

Sean:

Thank you. Now your positions on these points are crystal clear. I find it helpful to make sure I understand a point of view as clearly as possible before commenting on it. It seems to me that is only fair to the individual holding that position. Don't you agree?

Erv

"You simply are not an SDA"

Erv,

At some point repeatedly asking someone if they really mean what they just said and explained several times becomes fairly tedious - wouldn't you agree? It starts to feel like when former Pres Clinton asked, "what the definition of 'is' is." (Link)

If you really need to get that slick and "careful" in your definitions and in the understood definitions of common words and phrases used by others, there's a problem. The definition of words and terminology is important, but if you redefine them to mean something completely different from what you know the general interpretation of a word or phrase actually is, or if you know your definition is significantly different from the understanding of a particular audience before you, then you are being like our own Slick Willy if you use your own personal definition without clarification. You are knowingly transmitting information inaccurately in such cases.

You, in particular, have redefined what you know most people mean when they used the phrase "SDA". You simply are not an "SDA" as most people understand that particular term. Rather, you have created your own unique definition for this term and then use your own definition when using this phrase in your conversations or discussions with others even though you know they probably do not share your unique definition of this term.

That, Erv, is deliberate deception in my book - a deliberate misrepresentation of yourself equivalent to the slickness of good ol' Slick Willy himself. Your appeal to the fact that there are some other people (ala Richard Rice and his book) that seems to share your particular definition is no excuse. You know that your interpretation is not what is generally understood when someone asks if you are a SDA. Therefore, for you to say, "I am a SDA in good standing" is very misleading when you say it without any further clarification to a general audience since you know your definition of a SDA is probably not shared or even understood by that audience. You must know that; and yet you continue to present yourself as a SDA in good standing without any further clarification of your unique definition of what it means to be a Seventh-day Adventist?

That, in a nutshell, is deliberately deceptive as I see it.

Sincerely,

Sean

Essential Versus Accidental Elements

of the SDA Faith

Sean:

It seems to me that you have developed your own personal mantra in which you say over and over to yourself and anyone who will listen: "ET is not an SDA, ET is not an SDA . . ." and "ET is 'deliberately deceptive', ET is 'deliberately deceptive', ET is . . . . And so on.

As the Extra Terrestrial in this incantation, all I can do to help you is by responding "ET is an SDA, ET is an SDA . . ." and "ET is being honest, ET is being honest, ET is . . ." etc. [Well, you get the idea.] Now where does this silly little exercise get us?

As a factual matter, you (thankfully) can not affect the membership status of anyone's "good and regular standing" in the SDA Church since, as I trust you are aware, the only body that can confer and withdraw membership is a local SDA church congregation.

Since it is now crystal clear (such as in Colonel Jessep's "Are we clear?" and Lieutenant Kaffee's responding "Crystal!" in "A Few Good Men") that you believe that propositional statements (doctrines) are the essential heart and soul of our faith community and the most important thing about it, there would seem to be very little more to discuss.

Larry Downing, an Adventist pastor, formerly the senior pastor at the Ellen G. White Memorial Church in Los Angeles, recently expressed the problem with your approach much better than I can in a recent article in Adventist Today. Following from suggestions by Earle Hilgert, a former Adventist Seminary professor, Dr. Downing addressed the problem of distinguishing between Essentials and Accidentals in the Christian faith. He notes that, in many religious traditions, Accidentals (e.g., in Adventism, the Investigative Judgment doctrines) are confused with the Essentials (e.g., belief in the existence a higher Being).

He notes that "Today, Seventh-day Adventists are under pressure to decide if it is possible for one member's Essentials to be another member's Accidentals . . . Can the Seventh-day Adventist Church permit a diversity of belief without destroying the Christian fellowship of its members? . . . There are those who believe it is important to define the Essentials and set precise doctrinal boundaries. These members expend energy and resources to promote what Hilgert defines as Accidentals. The end result of these efforts is divisions, infighting, and loss of credibility. To the extent this continues, the Adventist Church's contribution the world's progressive understanding of Essential Christian theology may become heavily discounted."

I guess those of us who work to maintain a wider and more inclusive circle in the church and resist those who wish to exclude anyone with whom they disagree as to what constitutes Essentials and Accidentals, we will continue to agree to disagree almost completely on what constitutes the core elements of our religious heritage.

Would you not agree that it is a glorious tribute to the increasing maturity of the Adventist Church that we both can belong to it in "good and regular standing" on a totally equal basis while disagreeing on so very much?

Erv

The Need to Identify the Essential

Doctrines of a Church

Dear Erv,

Do you really believe that acknowledgement of the existence of a "higher power" or "God" is an "essential doctrine" of the SDA Church? Yet, didn't you say that you had no evidence for a belief in the existence of God? Have you now found some evidence? If so, what is it?

You see, we aren't talking about one of the more contentious doctrines of the SDA Church like the investigative judgement here. We are talking about what has always been fundamental to the SDA Church - to include the very existence of God, and other key features that are included in the very name Seventh-day Adventist - - such as a literal creation week with God specifically setting aside the Sabbath in memorial of the creation week and the second coming of Jesus.

The problem here is that you don't believe any of this - or so it has seemed to me from what I've heard you say in the past. In fact, from what I can tell of your stated beliefs, you don't believe more than 4 or 5 of the stated fundamental doctrines of the SDA Church. And, the ones that you do believe don't really set you appart from any other Christian or even non-Christian group.

So, please do answer a few questions for me now if you would - questions you seem to avoid regarding what you actually believe:

1. Do you believe that there is evidence of God's existence - or any non-human "higher power"?

- If your answer is "no" to this question, there really is not need in answering any of the other questions is there?

2. Do you believe that belief in God is the only essential doctrine of the SDA Church? If so, what is the difference between the SDA Church and any other Christian or even non-Christian groups that believe in a God or "higher power" of some kind?

3. As I've sort of asked you before, how many of the stated fundamental doctrines of the SDA Church do you actually believe in and actively promote? - which ones are these in particular?

I think that's good for now. I'd be very interested in your answers to these questions.

Thanks again . . .

Sean

P.S. My goal here is not to have you removed from the SDA congregation. I actually like it when non-SDAs come and enjoy the SDA Church. My goal is to get you to properly represent yourself to those who do not already know you and your doctrinal positions. Telling those who do not know you that you are an SDA is very misleading because you know that general audiences and church members generally do not define that term the same way you define it - and you know it. Therefore, you are being deliberately misleading when you tell a general audience that you are an SDA.

How am I off base here? This concept seems obvious to me.

On 5/29/08, Erv Taylor wrote:

Sean:

Sorry for the delay in responding to your multiplexed multiquestions. The long weekend has provided a respite from self-imposed deadlines--but only temporarily.

You seem to be a little confused about my views about the existence of God.

First of all, I think we would agree that the Adventist Church is a Christian denomination. Obviously, Christians are theists; therefore it is completely appropriate for the Adventist Church to espouse theism. It would be very strange if we as a Christian Church community did not. Wouldn't you agree?

However, I can not locate anywhere in our 28 Fundamentals where there any arguments advanced that attempts to provide explicit evidence, let alone proof, for the existence of God. (I am not going to quibble over the appropriate term(s) to refer to the Deity.) I can only locate assertions about assumed characteristics of God.

Also, I can not locate anywhere in the Hebrew or Christian Scriptures where there is set forth any formal line of arguments that seek to conclusively demonstrate the existence of God. Again, to Hebrews and early Christian alike, it seems to me that it is simply a fact of life, a given. Can you point to some passage in Scripture that makes clear explicit arguments for God's existence? God just exists, He is.

I would suggest that the most helpful way to argue about the existence of God is not to do it. It is an interesting thing to do in dormitory bull sessions when you are a university freshman or sophomore. But at some point, some of us grow up and view such discussions as interesting but, at their core, non-resolvable except on the level of the purely subjective. You may wish to "prove" to yourself that God exists through some subjective experience, and that, in my view, is all that can be done. Some personality types seem to have an easier time having these subjective experiences.

You ask if I believe there is "evidence of God's existence." Obviously there is exists evidence at many levels. Like you, I have read a number of the arguments arguing in support for the existence of God written by a number of very intelligent people over many centuries. I must say that I have not, as yet, come across any cognitively-based argument that settles conclusively such a question. They might have worked in an earlier period of Western history, but it seems to me that they do not work very well in contemporary public discourse.

As you also know, all kinds of people in all kinds of cultures, including our own, report that they have had personal encounters with what they understand as "God." The question is whether such reports might be considered as convincing to anyone but the individual having the personal encounter.

I simply choose to assume that such an entity that we call "God" (in English) does exist. If you say that such an entity does not exist, that's fine.

If you would ask me to provide arguments that would be convincing to anyone else, I would have to pass. It seems to me that if a mature human being of normal intelligence does not believe in the existence of God, there is nothing I can say that would be convincing.

Now perhaps you have had a "personal" encounter with God. I have no reason or motivation to say that you did not. That would be a silly and foolish thing. But I would suggest that your encounter is your encounter—period!

I suspect that God is not concerned whether we "believe" in Him/Her or not. It reminds me of a three year old which yells at his mother, "I hate you, I hate you." What does a mature parent do? Feel crushed and rejected? Say, "It is very bad to say you hate your mother. Or worse, punish the child" Hardly. Unless, of course, this parent is very immature herself. The appropriate response in my view is for the mother to smile and say, "I understand you are angry right now. We will talk about this later perhaps when you are a little older" We are all like that three year old child. As individuals and as a species, it seems to me that we all have a lot of maturing to do before we can have an intelligent conversation about the nature of God.

That's enough for now. Please permit me to respond to questions 2 and 3 in a separate epistle.

Erv

PS Are you reading the blogs on the newly redesigned Adventist Today website?

Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 07:35:13 -0700

Hey Erv,

Thanks for your response to my first question; my question asking if you had any evidence for the existence of God. Your response is quite interesting to me. It seems like you are something of an agnostic. You say that you accept that God exists, but you have no evidence for this belief that you wish to share or that you think would be convincing to anyone besides yourself? - not even your own granddaughter? How is your belief in the existence of God on any more solid basis than a child's belief in Santa Claus? What is the fundamental difference between your belief in God and a vague wishful thinking or hoping in some nice fantasy that you would like to be true?

As far as the Bible goes, there are lots of stories of times where God provided evidence, time and again, for his own existence that any rational mind would accept as clear evidence of superhuman if not God-like power. Raising Lazarus from the dead comes to mind here. So do all of the other new-testament miracles or "signs" as John calls them. Paul also refers to miracles and to prophecy to support the existence of Jesus as God or the Messiah. Jesus himself suggests that the "evidence of the miracles" testify to his connection with a very real God. The writers of the Old Testiment also often refer to fulfilled prophecy as evidence of God's action and power - as well as to numerous "miracles".

Of course, you might argue that these miracles are not observable by us today, but the witness of prophecy is observable by us today as are a host of other miracles within Nature that are overwhelmingly miraculous. Are there attempts at naturalistic explanations? Sure there are. Are these explanations convincing? Well, to the majority of mainstream scientists they are. However, when you really look closely at the explanations of mainstream scientists for many of these miracles of nature (and even of prophecy), they really aren't convincing at all - no more convincing than trying to explain how someone can raise from the dead after decomposing for 4 days in the tomb.

Personal subjective opinion? Maybe, but so are all scientific hypotheses and theories that are ultimately accepted by scientists. There is no such thing as absolute proof - not even in science. But, there certainly are very good arguments to support the existence of a superhuman intelligence at play in this universe and in our own little world that have a great deal of predictive scientific power.

This is one reason why this whole topic of detecting design in nature isn't just a side issue. It forms the basis of the very first steps the Church must take in providing solid hope in the good news of the Gospel. Without some basis for supporting the argument of the very existence of God, all you really have as a basis for the rest of the Gospel is a nice Santa Claus story and nothing more. That is unless of course God has somehow given you your own personal vision or evidence of his own existence that he has not given to anyone else.

He has not done this for me. I'm no prophet. I've seen no visions and heard no voice of or from God or angels or any non-human intelligence that I know of. This does not mean, however, that God has provided me no solid evidence of his own existence.

Anyway, I do thank you again for your response and your thoughts on this issue.

Sean

P.S. I noticed that you left off the paragraph in my book review where I pointed out that you said that you would have nothing to say if your granddaughter asked you for evidence of God's existence. Why didn't you tell me ahead of time that you were going to delete that paragraph? Didn't you say that you would publish my review "as is" without any substantive editing?

Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 07:58:17 -0700

Hey Erv,

Just a note of clarification.

I'm not so interested in the arguments for or against the existence of God as I am in your own reasons why you personally claim to believe in the existence of God while knowing of no convincing evidences of God's existence. I find that sort of thinking most interesting given your background. You can just choose to believe in a God without any evidence whatsoever that is personally convincing to you? To quote the likes of Richard Dawkins, how is your belief in a God any different than a belief in the "Flying Spaghetti Monster"? - much less the Christian version or view of God, his power, and his character?

If belief in God is nothing more than a personal choice without any other basis or reason, what is the real relevance of Christianity or the benefit in spreading the baseless Christian "story" of God? What do you personally have to offer as far as giving someone else beyond yourself a solid hope in a Christian-style God?

Note that Peter says that we should be prepared to give a reason for the hope that is within us to anyone who asks (1 Peter 3:15). What is your reason for your belief in God? Is your own reason going to be at all convincing to anyone looking for something better or more hopeful than what they already have? - some really Good News? - a solid "Gospel" that will really provide hope and joy to the dying? What is your best argument for someone who comes to you searching for some answers that might give them some real confidence in the future? It doesn't have to be convincing to everyone or even most people. But, it should at least be convincing to you to the point that you think it is at least worth sharing.

In short, do you really believe in the Gospel, or do you just wish it where true like a child wishes Santa Claus were true?

Sean

Your Online Comment

To post your online comment, click on the above image or the Internet link listed below:

http://sdaforum.com/WordPress/wp-admin/post.php?action=edit&post=3

Back to the Top? Click Here ==>

Free Mailing List Club!

If you would like to be on our SDA Forum Mailing List, please take a minute to sign up today and join hundreds of others who have done already so. It is free, and you will have the choice of unsuscribing at will. We do not share, nor do we sell your E-mail to others.