Goldstein...you don't belong!

Today I saw and interview with Clifford Goldstein on 3ABN The show was 3ABN Today. I saw it on 5-16-2015 though I don't know if that was the original air date or not. In this portion which I have recorded and placed on YouTube Goldstein the following is stated:

Interviewed by Shelly Quinn on 3ABN Today; speaking of a new series Goldstein is introducing on the 3ABN channel:

“…Why would Adventists want to watch your program, who already believe in the Bible?”

Goldstein:

“Well we are all assaulted by this in the church being assaulted by this, we are also in the church being assaulted by evolution by a lot of you know even professed Adventists who believe in evolution and I am sorry if you believe that God used millions of years what they now call neo-darwinian synthesis to create life you do not belong in the Seventh-day Adventist church.”

Quinn:

“I agree”

Goldstein:

“You don’t  belong  here, some people say they can reconcile it well I think they are being deluded. But there are a lot, particularly our young people who tend to be a lot more honest  and if I were a young Seventh–day Adventist and I were convinced that evolution were true I don’t know how I could remain a Seventh-day Adventist…”

 

There are a number of problems here. First he miss defines Neo-Darwinian synthesis apparently conflating it with Theistic Evolution.  The definitions follow later. The really key problem here is that his view produces a self fulfilling prophecy. His view is that if Adventists believe that God used millions of years then you don't belong in the Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) Church. Then in his estimation if you are a young person who believes in evolution (apparently any kind, I don't know, let us for this article assume he just means that evolution was a involved in millions of years to get to life that we see today) then you simply could not remain an SDA. Why would that be? The simple answer is because people like him say that you don't belong. He then thinks that these young people are more honest then those older deluded Adventists who came to realize the reality as they see it in the principles of evolution and the evidence for an earth that is much older then traditional Adventism says. These older people did not have people in General Conference leadership roles telling them they did not belong in the SDA church. Well he clearly is out to fix that! They simply don't belong!

 

The Adventist church has somewhat allowed the divergent beliefs of those who can synthesize modern science and theology but it has become an exceedingly unfriendly place for such people. After all why be part of a group that says you don't belong. Not something I would fight to remain in, but that may be because I find so many other problems in the SDA church.

 

If any of you think that this is simply about the wording of a fundamental belief to be decided at the upcoming General Conference session...you are in for a disappointment.

 

Now for some definitions.

        

Theistic evolution is the teaching that God used natural evolutionary processes to bring     life  to its current level of speciation. Theistic evolution would deny the specific creative act of God in bringing the person of Adam, who would be the first human and the representative of mankind, into existence.https://carm.org/dictionary-theistic-evolution

 

Theistic Evolution would include most of the variants of Intelligent Design and has been the view of notable Christians such as C.S. Lewis: "C.S. Lewis clearly believed that Christians can accept evolution as common descent without doing violence to their faith. This is what Lewis was getting at when he wrote to evolution critic Bernard Acworth, "I believe that Christianity can still be believed, even if evolution is true."¹⁸ In Lewis's view, whether God used common descent to create the first human beings was irrelevant to the truth of Christianity. As he wrote to one correspondent late in his life, "I don't mind whether God made man out of earth or whether 'earth' merely means 'previous millennia of ancestral organisms.' If the fossils make it probable that man's physical ancestors 'evolved,' no matter." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/11/darwin_in_the_d_1079231.html

 

What is intelligent design?
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago. http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php1. T

The Neo-Darwinian Synthesis (also called the "Synthetic Theory of Evolution")

• formulated during the decade 1937-1947.

• updated Darwin's ideas using new information from many scientific fields.

• main features of this view are mutation and natural selection.

• genetic mutations produce variation within a population (Darwin could not explain variation).

• natural selection preserves the most fit varieties within a species, as explained by Darwin.

• macroevolution is simply microevolution extrapolated.

• evolution is slow, gradual, and continuous, as held by Darwin.

• this view has difficulty explaining the fossil record with its lack of transitional forms.

In the 1930s and '40s evolutionists worked to incorporate new data from various subdisciplines of biology into a revised version of classical Darwinism. The primary focus on natural selection was maintained, but other aspects of Darwin's thinking were updated.  http://www.creationbc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=124&Itemid=62

 

You can see that there is a large division between Neo-Darwinian Synthesis and Theistic Evolution and Intelligent Design...that being the unseen hand of God somehow at work. Which makes Goldstein's use in the sentence completely wrong. "I am sorry if you believe that God used millions of years what they now call neo-Darwinian synthesis to create life you do not belong in the Seventh-day Adventist church.” If he meant to say that naturalistic atheistic evolution then I could agree because why be a part of a theistic church if you don't believe there is a God then I would not have a problem with his view. But since in the sentence he specifically said "if you believe that God used" and then reference an entirely naturalistic evolutionary process his statement does not work on any level. Sadly like the interviewer Shelly Quinn there are far to many people who will simply agree with Goldstein's incorrect logic and use of terms.

 

 

 

Ted Wilson on the 3 Angels Messages

Normally I like to reference as close to possible the actual words of someone but since I can't find a copy of Ted Wilson's NAD Year-End Meeting sermon I will reference the report from Spectrum. For quite a while I have told people that when Adventists use the term Three angels messages or thrid angel's message they are using the phrases as code words for the primary beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist church (SDA). It is hard to find any Adventist leaders who will come right out and say that, but it does appear that Ted Wilson came pretty close in his sermon recently.

"Wilson argued that a correct theological understanding would drive a correct approach to mission. "Seventh-day Adventist theology and mission are inseparable," he said. He added his contention that the three angels' messages are the most important messages Adventists have to share. "They are our theology and our mission," he said, "and the reason for God's wonderful Remnant Church."

Most of us know that the three angels messages are found in the book of Revelation and have been messages given since the second century. So we now have a pretty good reference that Adventists see themselves as the embodiment of the three angels messages. 

"Wilson sprinkled the message with what have become familiar talking points during his tenure as president. The first came around seven minutes into his sermon when Wilson asserted that the first angel's message that the hour of God's judgment has come includes a call to recognize God as creator: "The one who created this earth recently, in six literal days," capped off by the seventh day Sabbath, Wilson intoned. "That literal seven-day cycle has never been broken since the creation of this world," he said."

Revelation does not say anything about 6 literal days, or the Sabbath, those are read into the text so that Adventist theology can be shown to be the three angels messages.

Revelation 14:6

And I saw another angel flying through the sky, carrying the eternal Good News to proclaim to the people who belong to this world—to every nation, tribe, language, and people. ⁷ “Fear God,” he shouted. “Give glory to him. For the time has come when he will sit as judge. Worship him who made the heavens, the earth, the sea, and all the springs of water.” NIV

There was once a time in the Adventist church where the judgment was the big issue with this text. Now it appears to be a pretext for a recent literal 6 day creation. I still prefer the good news about God as our judge, that we are not simply left here on our own, but that is just me.

"Next, Wilson focused on the Sabbath-Sunday divide that Wilson argued would separate God's people from the others. "During the time of trouble that is coming, and immediately preceding the Second Coming, the seventh-day Sabbath will be the central issue of the Great Controversy," Wilson said. He went on to add that in addition to keeping the Sabbath, worshiping God as creator also requires "willingness to reject false theories about the origin of life, such as evolution or theistic evolution." Here, Wilson pivoted to focus on another recurring theme that has marked his presidential agenda. "It is impossible to believe in evolution or theistic evolution and say that God is creator of heaven and earth and all the life they contain," he announced. "The two concepts simply do not mix." Wilson then stated his view that evolution is not a science, but "a false form of religion - not only a religion, but also a part of spiritualism, which will play a major, negative role in the final events."

When someone such as Wilson tells people it is impossible to believe in evolution or theistic evolution and yet believe in God as creator, it does not so much prove his contention as prove he knows little about other peoples beliefs. Which is not really something that you want in a religious leader in my opinion. If the two concepts do not mix then we have to pretend that there is no such thing as evolution. But scientifically we know that all kinds of organisms change and that evolution is an integral part of science. Things that have had huge successes in increased knowledge such as genetics use evolution as one of their key components.

As the TTC Guidebook on Understanding Genetics says:
 Three major ideas tie biological science together.

a. Mechanism. Many societies have believed, and many people continue to believe, that the rules thatgovern life are different from the inanimate universe. They propose a“vital force”to explain this.Examples of this are the chi of Chinese philosophy and traditional medicine. Biological science rejects this idea, proposing instead that the same rules of physics and chemistry that govern the lifeless world (e.g., rocks, the air) govern life. 

 

b.Cell theory. Since the microscope was first used to visualize living things, biologists have agreedthat cells are the building blocks of life (just as atoms are the building blocks of chemistry). All living things are made up of cells, and all cells come from other cells. 

 

c. Evolution. Organisms are related by common ancestry, and there has been and continues to be change through time, or descent with modification. In 1859, Charles Darwin proposed natural selection as a way to explain how organisms with different characteristics change through many generations

When a religious leader simply denies evolution he is denying the science of most of the biological sciences. History has shown us pretty well that when religion butts head with science the science will win. Usually by religion realizing that it's presuppositions were not based upon reality but upon tradition. Tradition though it may last for quite a while seems to also lose in areas of the world with significant educational systems.

"Discussing the second of the three angels' messages, Wilson stated that Babylon as described in Revelation refers to all those churches that did not heed the warning message first given in 1844, and that teach the theological errors passed down through the church of the Middle Ages. Intense anger and fierce opposition will result from exposing Babylon, Wilson predicted."

 Babylon in the book of Revelation had nothing to say about the churches after 1844. The idea that Babylon had no meaning until church rejected the incorrect end of the world prediction of William Miller is quite a leap in logic and interpretation. You can see why in his sermon he had to rely heavily on Ellen White to make it even seem like he had a case to make.

As Wilson continues to the third angel we see that again it is just to produce Adventist theology into the messages:

"The message of the third angel, Wilson said, is based on the prophecy of the preceding chapter, Revelation 13. The beast, Wilson said, represents the Apostate Church, which will negatively affect Adventists' religious liberty. He was referring to Adventists' ability to worship freely on Saturday, and predicted that, in accordance with Bible prophecy, that ability will be diminished. This will happen because religious entities will take control of governmental powers, and the Apostate Church will have free reign, he said. Wilson referenced several statements in The Great Controversy to bolster his assertions.

"The Mark of the Beast, which is the observance of any day other than the seventh-day Sabbath is an institution that clearly sets forth the authority of the Beast because the Sabbath is God's mark of his authority," Wilson said.

"One church boldly boasts that she has changed the seventh-day Sabbath, instituted at creation, from Saturday to Sunday," Wilson said, making a reference to the Catholic Church."

Does the Roman Catholic Church boldly declare they changed the Sabbath. There are some rare printed statements to that effect but that is not the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. So it can't really be boldly if they don't even do it. See the National Catholic Register:

You sometimes encounter the charge that the Catholic Church wrongly "changed the sabbath" from Saturday to Sunday. This claim is often made by Seventh-Day Adventists, for example. But even if one isn't accusing the Church of wrongdoing, the question can still arise: Why do Catholics worship on Sunday rather than Saturday? Here's the story . . .

 What Day the Sabbath Is
First, let's clear away a potential source of confusion. While it's true that people sometimes speak of Sunday as "the Christian sabbath," this is a loose way of speaking. Strictly speaking, the sabbath is the day it always was--Saturday--though it should be noted that traditionally Jewish people have celebrated the sabbath from sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday. Sunday is a distinct day, which follows the sabbath. The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains:

2175 Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the sabbath. In Christ's Passover, Sunday fulfills the spiritual truth of the Jewish sabbath and announces man's eternal rest in God. For worship under the Law prepared for the mystery of Christ, and what was done there prefigured some aspects of Christ.

In any case when one looks at the Early Church Fathers it becomes clear that their desire to celebrate the day of Jesus resurrection well predated the actual Roman Catholic church. The whole concept of the Sabbath representing God's authority could also be used for Sunday observance. Since that was the day that Jesus showed His power over death. It is a pity that people like Ted Wilson cannot let everyman be convinced in his own mind, but again the purpose in Ted Wilson's sermon is not to spend time on interpreting and reasoning from scriptures but to assert that Adventist theology is the fulfillment of the three angels messages.

 

If you want a sermon that puts Adventism into the Bible rather then reading what the Bible is trying to say to you, then this is the kind of sermon you will like. 

A Response to When is logic illogical

There is a common problem we see with many Adventists as they talk about Genesis.  They assume if you do not accept the literalistic six days of creation then you don’t believe in God’s involvement at all. One would think that with the theory of Theistic Evolution that would not be a problem (“Theistic evolution is not a scientific theory, but a particular view about how the science of evolution relates to religious belief and interpretation” Wikipedia). It incorporates the divine supernatural activity of God in the direction of evolution. But most Traditional Adventists find it easier to create the straw man argument. That argument is that of naturalistic evolution where random chance and life from non life is the only explanation offered against their literal view of six day creation. That is why so many of them such as Clifford Goldstein and David Read so commonly present the opposition to their literal creationism as Seventh-day Darwinians or Darwinians respectively.  As this blog has pointed out in a previous article both of those terms are inaccurately used. Seventh-day Darwinians without even having a definition! Even when frequently used by Clifford Goldstein, he can’t be bothered to define his own term, it simply is meant as a slam against his opponents. Not based upon what they believe or espouse but upon his distortion of their beliefs. That is why his opponents are never mentioned by name or their statements are ever quoted.

This atmosphere in the Adventist media has pervaded the dialog so when Bruce Justinen wrote his response to my article “the need for logic” he presents logic as opposed to the supernatural. This technique allows them to buttress their literal creation story as supernatural and if you don’t accept their traditional literal version of the creation story you don’t accept anything supernatural. This is how Bruce expressed it:

For some, this is not good enough, they must know.  So they hypothesize, they imagine, they fill in the blanks, they logic that which it is not subject to logic.  “The fiery furnace, Jonah and the great fish, the sun moving backward, the axe head floating ...”

The Straw man arguments are logical fallacies, but they are a frequent method of manipulation…at least until the fallacy is pointed out and then it is clear that the logic of their position is in fact not logical but a fallacy stated as a fact. The art of propaganda is to keep repeating something long enough that people then accept it. But merely repeating a lie does no one any good. It does not lead to a good discussion and it certainly does not lead to any sort of reasoned argument and will never lead to a satisfactory conclusion.

But the original question is not is there or was there supernatural activities. The very term theistic evolution should disabuse someone of that idea.  That it does not, shows that their position is not based upon logic but upon misinformation. The use of misinformation is contrary to a well reasoned argument (logic). Let us remind ourselves of the definition of logic:

1. the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.

2. a particular method of reasoning or argumentation: We were unable to follow his logic.

3. the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.

4. reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions: There wasn't much logic in her move.

5. convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness: the irresistible logic of the facts.

That the logical principles should be overlooked because one claims supernatural beliefs is perhaps one of the strangest arguments one could make. As Bruce wrote:

“What I think he fails to see is that logic has not been cast aside by.  It is that Adventism has always chosen the logic of the Supernatural over the logic of science.   We simply turn to the Supernatural.  If I may paraphrase Webster “not subject to explanation by Me...or anyone I know.”

“But as Christians we make choices as to what we will believe.  We realize we do not have all of the information – all of the time.  The Bible does not claim to give us all of the information on Creation or a host of other subjects, it gives us what it gives us, there may be more, there probably is – a lot more.  I don’t know.  And there lies the conundrum – I don’t know.”

First there is no logic of the Supernatural. We can’t study the supernatural we study what others have said about the supernatural and with logic we make inferences of possible relationships between the natural and the supernatural. Theistic evolution supposes supernatural activity that correlates with the physical evidence on the planet and the visible universe.  Thus life is still produced by God but the technique used is not that assumed by traditions.  As science learns more we have redefined our interpretations, as we see evidence which makes our previous belief seem less probable.  God is not removed but his methods of activity are interpreted in less traditional ways.

If Christians were more logical they would see that their interpretations of the Bible have indeed changed through time as people learn more. As Bruce says he does not know. When one does not know something the logical thing to do is not to simply stand on the traditions but to acknowledge that there may in fact be other methods of interpretation of the Biblical stories. So as he says the Bible does not claim to give us all the information on Creation so why do so many Christians feel that their traditional interpretation is the only possible solution. If they don’t know, if their answers are clearly inadequate why not allow for the possibility of other methods of interpretation and other theories of origins.

The false logic of only accepting the tradition of a literal 6 day creation or young earth creation and then distorting other Christian theories of origins is the problem.  The discussion gets nowhere because one side is trying to use logic and the other refuses to use logic, pretending that they are, but in fact treating their beliefs and traditions as if those things represent logical arguments. This is not to say that this is the problem of all Christians, for there are people working in Creation Science or Intelligent Design or Theistic Evolution, all these can work on understanding the Creation yet none of them have or are likely to present a scientific theory of origins, since each has to use the supernatural and the supernatural is outside of our investigative processes.

We can’t just resort to supernaturalism as a belief on origins because then we have nothing more than a series of religions each with their own supernatural origin beliefs. To make the case that way we would have to prove our particular belief to be the only possible religion and once we have proved our religion alone is right then we would submit that are particular belief is the correct view of supernatural origins. Our logic then will be used to set forth our particular religion or denomination or church as the correct and only true and verifiable belief. That is a losing task, and it deflects from God to a religious tradition which is usually simply a group of narrowly accepted interpretations.

We will ultimately get nowhere if we ignore sound reasoning and following logical explanations for our beliefs. To ignore the scientific evidence is not logical or persuasive, we must do better, and we must, as Bruce said admit we don’t know and if we don’t know we can’t exclude options and possibilities and alternative explanations. Right now our church is at that threshold…will they be humble enough to go forward and seek to progress in understanding or go backward and assume that only our tradition is the acceptable belief for our church and its members.

Rationalizing the Bible

Continuing on the related subject of the last two blog articles, Clifford Goldstein's insistence that a theist evolutionist explain to his satisfaction his Biblical suppositions and the next article on the paradigm shift in theology that is coming to Adventism and Christianity. I would like to begin by quoting a comment from the Editor of Adventist Today magazine J. David Newman:

“Now those who have followed my exchanges on various threads know that I believe in a short creation and not one of millions of year. I believe this because of my presupposition that I understand nature through the bible. Others work from the presupposition that they make the bible fit into their understanding of science. My main concern is the issue of why Jesus Christ came to die for us and how sin and death relate to what he saves us from. I have not yet read anyone with an evolutionary veiw point explain how to fit the bible concept of a time without sin and without death into the evolutionary framework.”

There are a couple of notable things in this quote. First the understanding of Nature through the Bible. The Bible is not and has never been about nature, you could argue it is about human nature or maybe even the nature of God or the nature of characters in the stories of the Bible but it is really not even in the slightest bit about nature. Even the agricultural nature statements like early and latter rains are about a specific geographic area's weather. So they are in themselves not even about nature as one very limited version of nature. You don't learn nature from the limited examples, you have to broaden the base of knowledge to come to understand nature.

So the question is why does Newman think to understand nature by the Bible? I imagine he took Biology in high school or college and even if he took the theology students science course their textbook was not the Bible. So what he is really saying is that he has rationalized his understanding so that he can claim it is from the Bible. No Gregor Mendel for him, genetic inheritance is from the Bible, perhaps the story of Jacob and the spotted sheep produce his understanding of inheritance of physical traits. It could be like the article linked to above about Jacob and the spotted sheep which is from some publication that says it is “Science in Christian Perspective” which seems to be more about finding the science behind a miracle and thus validate their religious beliefs. By such reasoning Newman means that he understands nature based upon his assumed Christian positions. Thus the assumed position in recent 6 day creation period, based upon the assumption that the Genesis story was intended as a literal and historical representation of reality.

What is important to notice here is the way a shorthand term is used, “I understand nature through the bible” That is not what he means surely. He means he has certain interpretations he applies to Biblical texts and he rationalizes that such understanding defines his knowledge of nature as well. You can see why the shorthand is used...it really does not sound to clever when you unpack the information in the shorthand verbiage. Let me just define rationalization here so that we are clear:

“to ascribe (one's acts, opinions, etc.) to causes that superficially seem reasonable and valid but that actually are unrelated to the true, possibly unconscious and often less creditable or agreeable causes.”

The first part of the above quote is shown to be a rationalization and we can move on the the more important information and really the reason for this article. Newman says:

“My main concern is the issue of why Jesus Christ came to die for us and how sin and death relate to what he saves us from. I have not yet read anyone with an evolutionary veiw point explain how to fit the bible concept of a time without sin and without death into the evolutionary framework.”

Here I am on my second page of this article in the word processor and I am just getting to the most important part, why not just separate it into a second article. The answer is that though the material and subject matter are different, his presuppositions are the same. That is they are traditional Christian perspectives masquerading as this is what the Bible says, interpretation can only be via traditional views. Shorthand verbiage, “in the Bible”, that's what “the Bible says”, and of course, I am judging nature “by the Bible”; these are often just rationalizations.

But what Jesus' Atonement did is subject to what your presuppositions are. If the point is reconciliation between God and man it does not really matter how the separation first occurred, what matters is that it is the reality we live with. We are not really any better off because we have a story about the first sin on earth whether it was thousands or millions of years ago. What our ancestors may have done at some point in time is not that useful for us. I think my answer to what Jesus did by the atonement will be quite different from Newman's. As for the so called Bible concept of time without sin or death. Well even with the story in Genesis it is preciously short. Again that time that he wants explained is not necessarily what the Bible means, inspiration has the affect that it works upon people differently when they have different facts in front of them.

A good example is the verse where Jesus says:  

John 12:24 I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. (NIV) 

Nature if judged by the Bible requires that seeds die, cease respiration, but science tells us seeds that no longer respire are dead and they don't ever grow again...a farmer can tell you that as well even before they determined how to find out the germination rate using other methods besides actually germinating seeds. Now it may be that at one time the ancients really thought the seed died because it was buried, but we know now that is not the death of the seed. Has the meaning been lost because we now know that the seed did not really die? So is the point of the Genesis story to tell us about a time when death of any kind did not exist. Doubtful, there is nothing in our world that would allow us to conceive of a world with no death. We eat plants they die, we eat fruit the cells die, if bacteria did not die they would reproduce so quickly that they would cover the earth 50 feet deep in a month, if the bacteria didn't do it then the insects would. It simply does not work on any level we know of. Yet you don't see the traditionalist trying to explain the nature of life during that supposed length of sinless time. No they only want you to explain what happens with theistic evolution. God can make everything work in their perfect world of rather limited time in the Genesis but don't expect them to allow God to do anything if God chose to use some form of evolution.

The sad thing about this is that they think they are being so logical and so certain that they are “in the Bible”. But while they maybe in the Bible so can the theistic evolutionist, it is just that they are using different interpretation criteria and facts to arrive at their beliefs. No doubt we are far from figuring it out...Probably both sides, the young earth creationist and the Theistic evolutionist. But the young earth creationist seems to have stopped trying to understand and just begun to defend their interpretations. Thus they don't really grow any longer, they assume they have the truth but what they really have is traditions that are called truth. It stops their growth in practically every area of theology, from origins to the the atonement to inspiration. It is really time to begin to grow again.

Redefining Theology, Goldstein and Genesis

There was an interesting comment over on the Spectrum Magazine blog concerning Clifford Goldstein's March 2012 article in the Adventist Review, the subject of my previous article. In the comment section one atheist/former (you have to know his history of comments to know this fact it is not present in this comment) Adventist writes:

“All of you seem to have skipped Cliff's challenge: "For years I’ve been asking someone to give me a reinterpretation of the texts, based on the Darwinian worldview, that doesn’t undermine almost everything we believe: the trustworthiness of the Bible, the origin of sin and death, the character of God, and the meaning of the cross."

In the interest of not repeating the same old arguments and posts we've seen so many times before, why not seriously address his point. Cliff's argument is not with science per se; his point is that he is not willing, under any circumstance, to give up on the Christian gospel. If evolution allowed him to keep his faith intact, he would be happy to acknowledge the science behind it, if I read him correctly. The reason I think he is so angry at you is that he believes that you're eroding the ground upon which Christianity is built.”

I think this raises an important observation, Goldstein has not seen anyone produce a theistic evolutionary response that leaves in tact all of Goldstein's theological assumptions. No one really tries to answer Goldstein because it can't be done and contain all of Goldstein's assumptions that make what Goldstein considers the gospel. In brief what does his view of the trustworthiness of the Bible mean. Well he means that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are literal and historically accurate. Something no theistic evolutionary accepting Christian would accept. So to Goldstein to deny the literalness denies the trustworthiness of the Bible. But for those of us who accept theistic evolution trustworthiness is not based upon literalness.

The origin of sin and death is not really the topic of the first chapters of Genesis. Sin is not even mentioned until the story of Cain and Abel. Death is mentioned as a consequence of actions. Because of Adam and Eve's actions the tree of life is removed from their access. The story is hardly about the origin of sin and death, even Adventists seem to acknowledge that sin originated with Satan and Satan is not even mentioned in the Genesis story. He is a later addition to Jewish thought and then attributed to be the serpent of old in the book of Revelation. So even to the Adventist the subject is not the origin of sin.

What Goldstein means by the character of God I don't know, I would guess from his article he is thinking; how can God create through a system of death where animals and plants grow change and die and evolve. Apparently it is OK for God to make animals become predators upon others and virus and plants to attack and kill a host because God is upset by human sin. But he has to draw the line somewhere and he choses the evolution of nature to be somehow contrary to the character of God. Personally I don't see any problem with death before Adam and Eve, the assumption that it is not involved in the Genesis story seems wrong to me as the people in the story eat. So they are destroying cellular material and that is death. This is not a real problem unless you take the perfect world idea to it's logical conclusion, bacteria would grow and exponential rates and cover the earth in less then a week (maybe even 24 hours) if there was no death. The story is not trying to tell us there was no death, that is something people like to read into the story. Goldstein's assumptions are part of the things read into the story and he wants them maintained when they should be let go.

Last is his meaning of the cross. Goldstein is a forensic atonement person. I don't accept the substitutionary atonement, so I really would not find my meaning of the cross to be the same as Goldstein. In fact I think the substitutionary atonement theory speaks terribly about the character of God.

So can anyone do what Goldstein wants done? No, because what he wants is to find his beliefs encompassed with a totally different understanding of theology. His view is traditional but that hardly makes it correct. Traditions come and go, they are constantly adjusted and changed and just because they are traditional does not prevent their evolution. But that is what Goldstein wants; his tradition to be maintained, if not he can't accept anything else. But that really does not leave him in the position of authority in rejecting other views. It only means he won't look at anything other then the way he sees things.

The atheist commenter on Spectrum wants us to admit that the idea of evolution destroys the gospel. It does not, it destroys the fundamentalist or the traditionalists gospel. But is that really a bad thing?

More on Newman's Adventist Today Article

After my last post I have been having a bit of an E-mail correspondence with Adventist Today Editor J. David Newman. In that dialog I perceived that the basic problem in our presuppositions is that the literalist creation side has taken upon themselves a very fundamentalist view of scriptures. Fundamentalists have dominated much of Christianity in 20^th century as it was the Christian response to modernist reason, that reason gave us the disciplines of Higher and Lower Biblical Criticism. The Fundamentalist could not argue with the reality of Lower Criticism but they found that the more subjective ideas of higher criticism was to be decried. In Higher criticism we could see an advance in understanding through the timeline of the Bible. That the writers could actually insert their own ideas into the Bible books, that we don’t have to accept the idea that just because a text says that God said or did something it may not in fact be God who did or said what the author claims. Did God really kill thousands of Israelites for David’s transgression, did God really want to destroy Israel and Moses showed God the faulty logic of God’s intention, or that God really was sorry for creating mankind as the flood story says. The Traditionalist side of Adventism on the other hand does not seem to comprehend this idea very well. For them tradition decides their interpretations. For example the Jews have a tradition that the first five books of the Bible are the law of Moses and therefore written by Moses. Apparently even the material that describes the death of Moses, which rather makes the assumption false on it’s face. But with the Jewish tradition the Adventists prophet maintained the same tradition that Moses wrote Genesis and the other 4 books. If Moses the greatest of the prophets wrote the Genesis story it must be from God, though of course the book itself makes no such claims.

On top of this assumption Adventist have added many other traditions, mostly they can be laid at the feet of Ellen White but in most cases they were not ultimately developed by Ellen White but they became incorporated into Adventism through Ellen White. It is one of these that we find mentioned by David Newman toward the end of his Adventist Today article. He writes:

But there is an even bigger curse to come. Genesis tells us that God did not create the world to experience rain. We read in Genesis: “When the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up; the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground” (Gen. 2:4-6, NIV).

It was not until the time of the great Flood in Noah’s day that rain began to fall. “In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights” (Gen. 7:11-12, NIV).

Of course the Gen 2 text is not about rain falling after the creation it is the beginning statement of the alternate creation account of Genesis 2 describing the earth before anything was created. The flood account says nothing about there never being rain before but by placing the two verses together the Adventist tradition becomes there had been no rain before the flood. The creationists then will take this insertion of meaning into the Bible as one of their tools to say that physical laws have changed.

Interestingly enough in my conversation with Newman while he has no problem inserting such meaning as no rain before the flood he does not really want to deal with the idea that the Genesis story includes the law of entropy and the law of conservation. The story of creation talks about eating food, after all that is the meaning of the beasts of the field; the animals that forage on grass.

Genesis 1:30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground--everything that has the breath of life in it--I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

Food implies entropy and conservation of energy. So you can’t simply pretend it is not there. It is there and an animal like an Elephant would eat a lot of it not to mention what a dinosaur would eat or a whale, and these big mammals are kind of indiscriminant eaters. They aren’t going to be checking for crickets in their clump of grass. Did they just not eat until after Adam sinned even though in the creation account food is mentioned in both Genesis 1 and 2? If an animal was to eat but was not losing energy in someway what would be the purpose of food? It tastes good yes but if the idea was just to give a pleasurable sensation why not just use smell? Were they just to eat until they reached maturity and then stop their lifelong habits? With the ploy to changed natural laws the creationist asserts the change but has no evidence to support the claim and when ideas counter to their claims are made they can simply say the laws were different so it does not matter that they ate the law of conservation did not exist or entropy, a type of magical thinking which always solves any problem because they believe in a circular fashion and their belief is their evidence to support their belief.

In his article Newman writes:

I believe this law [law of entropy]—along with other laws that lead to decay and death—did not exist before sin entered the universe. Let’s take a look at Scripture to see when God changed fundamental laws under which our Earth operates.

He then quotes the curse that God declared on the ground, thorns and thistles. But as is the way of the traditionalists who think they are literalists Newman then adds material that is not found in the Bible, he writes:

All animals were vegetarians, but now some could prey on other animals for their food. This meant a change in how they processed food. Microevolution comes into play. And Satan can use all of his skills to help evil develop.

All that from thorns and thistles, vegetarians yes we could determine that from the story but there is nothing there about predation, nothing there about Satan using his skills, of course the idea of Satan is of much later development. But what of microevolution why did it suddenly appear or was it as the theistic evolutionists believe always a part of the natural laws of God, no change needed?

It always amazes me when listening to the creationists who pretend that they are accepting the literal story of creation and when you really look at it they are inserting all kinds of details to make the story work…the details which the story does not have at all yet for some reason they still think their view is the literal historical view and that anyone who interprets the story differently is not taking the Bible literally enough.

Idealogues; impossible to explain to them

I could not think how to point out this problem with President Obama in a way that reflected the purpose of this blog until I read something from Clifford Goldstein this last week. First President Obama, in an example of saying one thing the opposite of what is true. At the recent Obama question and answer session at the House Republican Retreat in Baltimore President Obama in referring to a fictional account of some none existent Republican plan that was to do twice as much as Obama’s plan and cost nothing Obama said:

“And the notion that I would somehow resist doing something that cost half as much but would produce twice as many jobs -- why would I resist that? I wouldn't. I mean, that's my point, is that -- I am not an ideologue. I'm not. It doesn't make sense if somebody could tell me you could do this cheaper and get increased results that I wouldn't say, great. The problem is, I couldn't find credible economists who would back up the claims that you just made.”

Notice the part where he says I am not an ideologue. An ideologue by the dictionary definition is:

1 : an impractical idealist : theorist
2 : an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology

It is the second definition that is most often used, a partisan advocate of a particular idea.

Notice later in the speech how Obama verifies that he is an ideologue:

“Now, what I said at the State of the Union is what I still believe: If you can show me -- and if I get confirmation from health care experts, people who know the system and how it works, including doctors and nurses -- ways of reducing people's premiums; covering those who do not have insurance; making it more affordable for small businesses; having insurance reforms that ensure people have insurance even when they've got preexisting conditions, that their coverage is not dropped just because they're sick, that young people right out of college or as they're entering in the workforce can still get health insurance -- if those component parts are things that you care about and want to do, I'm game. And I've got -- and I've got a lot of these ideas.”

This is an ideologue position because it puts forth that these components have to be met; even though they cannot be met. For instance any insurance plan that includes preexisting conditions will not reduce people’s premiums because the premiums have to cover more people with already known problems that will require more treatments. If you cover more people who currently don’t have insurance then again those already paying for insurance will have to pay more to cover those who don’t have insurance. Of course the young people just out of college could get health insurance but don’t want to pay for it because they don’t expect to use it that much. So what he has done is present an impossible ideal that he claims if you have a plan that can cover those components he will listen. But of course since there is no plan including that coming from the Congress or the Senate democrats that can do that, clearly the Republicans can’t do the impossible either.

Now why this example is included on a Adventist religion blog is because it is a frequent tactic of Adventist as well as other Christians in dealing with ideas that they oppose. Here is a portion of what Clifford Goldstein recently wrote on the Spectrum blog comments in response to Ron Osborn’s article:

“My big question, as I said, was in reference to evolution and the cross, because I can't see how evolution can be true and the cross, at least the subtitionary model (the only model the Bible teaches [I know that's a zinger on here]) could possibly be reconciled with it. I was waiting for your response to that.

I must admit I was disappointed. Is what you wrote above your answer? If so, then I am confirmed even more in my belief that one has to chose evolution, or Jesus, but not both.

Your words, "Or does this narrative in fact keep the cross as far away from the creation as possible? The standard legal-forensic model of Christ’s death may in fact be a desperate attempt to isolate the creation story in Genesis in a way that allows us to read it without any reference to Christ at all" . . . ? Maybe I'm missing something here, but what in the world, brother, are you talking about? Am I alone in finding those two lines uncomprehensible?

Can anyone on this blog give me a logical, coherent, biblical way of harmonizing evolution with the cross? I'm even willing to listen to someone harmonize a Maxwellian-subjective-view of atonement with evolution, if they can. “

Goldstein even while challenging someone to show him an alternate view posits that his view is the only real view anyway. In other words he sets himself up in the ideologue position. He is asking for someone to explain a different view from his own that incorporates all of his already preconceived notions. Particularly his Substitutionary view of Atonement. He says: “at least the subtitionary model (the only model the Bible teaches…)” and then later says “Can anyone on this blog give me a logical, coherent, biblical way of harmonizing evolution with the cross? I'm even willing to listen to someone harmonize a Maxwellian-subjective-view of atonement with evolution, if they can.” Setting up the impossible mission where the subjective view of atonement most be based upon the Biblical version which he has already told us is only Substitutionary. There is thus absolutely no way for anyone to present a logical coherent view that will be viewed as logical and coherent to Clifford Goldstein. The ideologue position prevents the ideologue from ever listening to anything that is not their position even if their position is impractical.

This does remind me that I have to finish my article which may help answer Cliff’s question. But even as you read it you will realize that there are vast differences in ways of interpreting things that have to be considered. You can’t declare this is what has to be incorporated for me to accept the idea behind theistic evolution and the reconciliation to God through the incarnation of God in Jesus Christ. I even doubt that people like Cliff would read to the end of part two and maybe that is why it has taken me so long to work on part 3. See: Ecclesiastes the Anti-Fundamentalist Book

Adventist Review and Theistic Evolution

-->

The Adventist Review has weighed in on the idea that Theistic Evolution should be accepted in the Adventist church. The article by E. Edward Zinke is entitled Creation and the Certainty of the Second Coming asks numerous questions. Strangely though it quotes no one who believes in Theistic Evolution, it does not even seem to paraphrase any beliefs of Theistic Evolutionists. The questions therefore are meant as rhetorical devices to assert that Theistic Evolution has no reason for their beliefs, that it destroys the Gospel. In some cases the article simply makes absurd statements which have no merit at all. For example:

“Spirituality matured through the process of evolution, they say, and finally reached an evolutionary peak in Jesus.”

Who are the “they” apparently not important enough for the author to identify, after all there are thousands or millions of beliefs out there if someone believes it then I guess that is all we need to know. Do you think that the Adventist Review will go out and ask a Christian who is a Theistic Evolutionist to contribute an article to the Review? I highly doubt it. If they publish a propaganda article like this they have no intention of actually dealing with what Theistic Evolutionists really believe. Even so the rest of us should realize that it is unwise to get the idea of what someone believes from people who don’t believe it. In other words you don’t go to Buddhist to find out what a Christian believes. The Buddhist may have a good idea if he has studied Christianity but when he tells you about Christians he will use statements by actual Christians. Objectivity is often not found in the ranks of the opposition to something. It is to those objective people that we should seek our knowledge not the people who simply say “they say”.

The author says:

“If we do not accept the biblical account of Creation, we are left with many, many questions, a few guesses, and no answers. We have an uncertain identity. The nature and even the existence of God are called into question. Our future is in limbo….”

This is a typical statement by traditional Adventists. By Biblical account they mean literal account. They ignore the possibility of the account being a myth used to teach people. If one believes the story is not meant in a literal way then that means that they don’t believe in the Biblical account of Creation. Because you don’t believe in the account the way they believe in the account. See my article Genesis in Symbol and Substance.

Included in the many questions the author asks is this:

“What implication does theistic evolution have for the way God acts in the world? If God either cannot or does not behave in the way that the Genesis Creation account describes, then what does that say for other reports of His activities in the rest of the Bible? Did God bring about a worldwide flood and guide Noah’s ark to safety?...”

What about the other questions about Noah’s flood, that God repented of making man, that God killed every living creature on the planet? There are whole hosts of questions there and that is before we even get to the scientific implications and evidence or better said lack of evidence of a worldwide flood. Clearly there is no shortage of questions regarding how God interacts with the world and they aren’t really answered any too clearly in the book of Genesis if you take the stories as literal. The article continues:

“Suppose God did bring about life on our planet by the process of theistic evolution, developing it through the survival of the fittest from simple life forms to the complexity of a moral and intelligent creature called Homo sapiens. What then would be the meaning of sin and salvation? Is sin simply a lack of progress? At what point could humans be considered to be created in the image of God and therefore morally responsible?”

Would it really matter? Would sin be anything different from what it is now if we did not simply suddenly come into existence. None of us living now or in the Bible times simply suddenly existed like the Adam and Eve in Genesis. Is sin different for someone who has never heard the Genesis story? Adam and Eve and their story do not define sin, selfishness and distrust define sin. But if you don’t know anything about God how can you be distrustful of Him? Sin then is still that virus that infects us with selfishness and hurts us and causes us to hurt others. Salvation would likewise be the healing of that situation. The God who heals would be the same God even if the method of creation was different from the presumed literal account of Genesis.

Sadly this is the kind of article that the Adventist church will produce and market to the membership. Where tradition is the method of understanding and any attempt to scientifically and rationally deal with the Bible and reality is decried as “Relying upon human ability to discover “truth,”… For some reason traditional Adventists don’t think that their interpretations are in any way based upon human reasoning, their default is that their interpretation is not their interpretation it is the literal word of God. Any other interpretation then is based upon human reasoning.

The destruction of Adventist Sabbath Schools

Adventist Today alerted me to a recent survey which covers numerous areas dealing with Adventists. There is a convergence of thought in my mind concerning the recent topic of theistic evolution vs. 6 day literal creation and some of the information in this survey dealing with Sabbath School.

Here are a couple of Sabbath School survey results:

Sabbath School Compared to Sunday School

Adventist churches are nearly twice as likely as other faiths in America to have a regular Sabbath School or Sunday School or similar religious education program for children and adults. More than 99% of Adventist local churches have Sabbath School each week, while only 53% of the local congregations of all religions have Sunday School or a similar program each week.

This is a major strength of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in North America. Dr. Win Arn and other church growth researchers working across many denominations have shown that congregations that have regular religious education programs are more likely to have significant growth. The research shows that this is especially true for those congregations that have a regular adult religious education program.

Research also shows that the better the attendance at the religious education program, the more likely a congregation is to grow. This is one reason why it is important to have a strong, vibrant Sabbath School, perhaps making changes to increase attendance if it has fallen off because the program is boring and not meeting the needs.

Small Groups

This week a church member considered moving her membership because her Sabbath School class didn't have enough interaction among class members.

"Because I have a stressful job and my family lives in other parts of the country, I look forward to relating to other believers at church," she stated. "But most classes are very impersonal with the entire focus on the lesson. I would really like to find a class that includes both in-depth Bible study and social activities."

According to data from the "Faith Communities Today" (FACT) study, in more than 75% of local Adventist churches, only a few members participate in small groups.

Only about one in fifteen churches have strong small group ministries with many or most adults participating. Nine Facets of Small Groups book.

Last week at the Sabbath School class I attend we were talking about how few people go to Sabbath school classes in our church, as we waited for more than the two of us to arrive. The largest class that week in the church had 9 people in attendance, yes I went out and counted them. This is a moderate sized church and I am pretty sure it is also representative of the majority of Adventist churches. Of course the numbers will vary with the size of the churches but I have noticed over the last 10 years that Sabbath School classes are very poorly attended. As the Center for Creative Ministries research shows the small groups and Sabbath Schools are important for the health of our churches. To be correlated to the small groups the Sabbath Schools must be the interactive variety rather then the sermon variety. The sermon variety is easily identified with the Sabbath School class that Doug Batchelor teaches.

But as we can see from the recent blog discussions here and elsewhere there are often people who don’t handle discussions very well. There seems to be a large segment in Adventism who are so certain, that they cannot even allow other ideas to be entertained. That is part of the problem when one assumes that their church is the remnant and that it holds the truth. The church then has the answers and no other ideas need apply. What do people like that do to a discussion group? Well they stifle it, they make it hurt for others to express their views if they are different from traditional church beliefs. If every one agrees with the traditional beliefs there is usually no discussion at all. No discussion leaves you with a Doug Batchelor style sermon class where half true amazing facts are inserted to add some interest to the topic. But the problem is that in a sermon class people don’t get to know other people. The problem with a class or small group that can’t allow other opinions is that people with other opinions do not feel accepted enough to care to go to the class. That can even be uncomfortable for people who may accept other ideas but don’t like to see any friction in a class.

It is very possible that we live in a time when people need to relearn how to talk to other people; how to discuss things without needing to become judgmental or overly protective of their traditions or orthodoxy. We will never connect with people until we can talk to them and if we don’t listen to other people we will not learn from them or about them. Thus there will really be no connection, no real church growth because as a church what do we really have to offer. If we can’t even accept the people in our churches who are we going to accept?

So tell your pastor to consider giving some sermons on how to accept people, how to listen to people and how to communicate what you believe and why you believe it without resorting to demanding that the other person leave their church. Sermons that address the need for small group community, because often sermons are the only thing people are coming to church for as they think that fulfills their worship requirements. So we have to depend on our pastors to communicate the need to form a community at an interpersonal level. Frankly I am constantly amazed at how irrelevant most sermons are today to the needs of modern people. Perhaps there is a class on irrelevance in seminary; I suppose if the sermon is so milquetoast it does not upset anyone that may be what some pastors are shooting for. But as it is now we are shooting ourselves constantly, driving out our own members and helping practically no one, within or without our churches. Many may want to stay doctrinally pure but that assumes that their doctrines were pure to begin with, that their doctrines were completely correct and without any need to ever be updated or rethought. Which strikes me as a very conceited point of few, and conceited points of view are poison to churches and community.