Creation debate the Progressive SDA side

RC_NewProtestants · May 15, 2010

Someone said that the Progressive SDA's had been on hiatus which I know is true in my case but I thought I would put up something from the LSU student who was so affronted that literalism was not the primary view he was taught by some professors. I think these are pretty good and I am pleased to see that we have professors considering more realistic views in the light of modern scholarship and science.

Adventist View of Creation dated November 11, 2009. After reading this
document, I was certain the Board was not aware of what was being taught in this seminar and felt convicted to inform them that their Statement was not being implemented at LSU. Examples of what was presented in this session include the following:

· The literal (historical-grammatical) method of interpreting the Bible is “not
particularly helpful.”

· The opening chapters of Genesis might not really be about how the world
came into being, but might be about how we understand the world as God’s
dwelling place; as the temple of God.

· The temple in ancient times was considered to be a miniature cosmos. When they built their temples, they built them as symbols of the entire cosmos—the entire universe.

· In ancient Jewish thought the temple was always dedicated in a seven-day ceremony. And so, when a temple is inaugurated, it wasn’t created then; it was dedicated and so you need to think in terms of the days of creation as being days of inauguration; God putting his stamp of ultimate approval saying ‘It is good. ‘

· The dedication of God’s temple, which is the Cosmos, so he could now enter and have a dwelling place—this happened in 7 days.

· Thus, the days of Creation as mentioned in the Bible are not necessarily days of creation, but rather days of inauguration of the temple. “As Dr. Webster eloquently mentioned in one of his last charts, the way we are now viewing Genesis 1 as figurative—it’s full of symbolism as well as having a literal time aspect; seven literal days—but they are days of inauguration, and not days necessarily of initiation or beginning.”

· The Old Testament Chronology, which was summed up as seven cycles of
490 years, is a human understanding of how history developed and when we have a humanly created product we don’t need to say this is absolute-- that the earth can be no older than 4012 BC.

· After graduation you will say I got my degree in June of 2013 but you are
getting something you earned over a period of time—not in one day. It is the same with the days of creation. They are inaugurated, set apart as special, but there was a lot of work that went on before them.

· Question by Dr. Greer: So, Warren, are you suggesting that a literalist
approach to Genesis 1 may be a misreading? Answer: The literal approach
doesn’t work in ancient thought.

· Book to be posted on Course Website, “The Lost World of Genesis 1” is a way of harmonizing science and religion. It’s the inauguration view of Genesis 1.

Current LSU Student Louie Bishop

Joe67 · May 16, 2010

The relationship between the creation of the world and the gospel of Christ, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, is inseparably bound together into one revelation from God the Father.

Rom 1:16-23
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. KJV

Faith toward God through the gospel of Jesus Christ that is not grounded in the creation is a vain faith.

Belief in the creation, apart from the faith of the gospel and its vision, is carnal, childish; but it is a necessary beginning in the knowledge of God.

Joe

RC_NewProtestants · May 16, 2010

Actually the too are completely unrelated as the how the world was created is not dependent upon or subject to ones understanding of Jesus Christ. The lamb slain from the foundation of the world is merely a metaphor for the foreknowledge of God.

But thank you for reminding us of the mentality that refuses to look at alternatives to traditionalism.

sdadoug · May 16, 2010

RC, Can't help but notice: You identify with "Protestants" faith more closely than SDA.
Question: In light of new catholic light regards evolution, just what are you now protesting here?

Joe67 · May 16, 2010

Our initial relationship to creation and salvation is either Greek and its profession of wisdom; or Jewish and its profession of obedience to the works of the law.

Joe

Restin · May 16, 2010

RC_NewProtestants said:
Someone said that the Progressive SDA's had been on hiatus which I know is true in my case but I thought I would put up something from the LSU student who was so affronted that literalism was not the primary view he was taught by some professors. I think these are pretty good and I am pleased to see that we have professors considering more realistic views in the light of modern scholarship and science.

· Thus, the days of Creation as mentioned in the Bible are not necessarily days of creation, but rather days of inauguration of the temple. As Dr. Webster eloquently mentioned in one of his last charts, the way we are now viewing Genesis 1 as figurativeits full of symbolism as well as having a literal time aspect; seven literal daysbut they are days of inauguration, and not days necessarily of initiation or beginning.

Click to expand...

Current LSU Student Louie Bishop

Growing up in SDA family and schools, and now in my retiring years, I believe SDAs, in general, have given far less 'symbolic' importance into creation as given in Genesis and there should be much more, deeper spiritual introspection into their symbolic meaning as given throughout the rest of the scriptures.

Yes, true spiritual progress is the way of our Lord... creation was "FINISHED" as stated in the Genesis creation story... and is symbolically understood in connection with the work of Christ here on this earth and in this fleshly life. In Jesus prayer to the Father, and from His words on the cross Jesus says what is FINISHED...

John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth:
I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. KJV

John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said,
It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost. KJV

RC_NewProtestants · May 16, 2010

sdadoug said:
RC, Can't help but notice: You identify with "Protestants" faith more closely than SDA.
Question: In light of new catholic light regards evolution, just what are you now protesting here?

I don't use the SDA icon because when I joined the Traditional SDA's were upset about anyone who did not accept the 28 fundamental beliefs.

As for protesting I take it you think that protestant comes from the idea of protesting against something. That is not what Reformation protestant means it means stating or standing for particular principles.

Perhaps it might surprise you to know that in its origin 'Protestant' is a very positive word. It comes from three Latin words which mean 'standing for a witness.' A true Protestant, therefore, is not someone who is always stirring up opposition to other people, but one who stands for a very positive belief. It is in this sense that the word was first used at the time of the Reformation. In 1529 a group of German princes made a declaration at a meeting at Spires. A decree had been framed by the rulers of Germany which threatened their liberties, and in reply they declared; 'We are resolved by the grace of God to maintain the pure and exclusive teaching of (God's) Holy Word ... We protest that we, for us and our people, neither consent or adhere in any manner to the proposed decree in anything that is contrary to God, to His Holy Word, to our right conscience, to the salvation of our souls.' These princes were then called 'Protestants,' and as the Reformation spread to other European countries, including England, the title came into common use when speaking of those who, like the German princes, resolved to maintain the pure and exclusive teaching of God's Holy Word, the Bible.
Are You A Protestant?

Considering the Genesis creation story with its symbolic trees (tree of the knowledge of good and evil, tree of life) and talking snake and curses and differing accounts between Gen 1 and 2. I am standing for the proposition that the story was not intended to be eternally taken as literal. That scientifically primative people may have taken it literally does not mean that that was the intention of the inspiration of the material recorded there. It only indicates that that is how ancient people may have taken it. And as we know from the other religions creation myths the idea that people even then took it as literal is doubtful. The literalism is probably more medieval in origin. We can find people like Augustine who did not hold to the literal idea or time frame, such things came even much later along with Ussher's chronologies.

sdadoug · May 17, 2010

Let's go with your definition, RC. For what, as an Adventist, are you standing?
The bible is clear and the Sabbath moot without a 7 day creation.
What is more difficult to believe; The message of REV 14, The Sanctuary model of judgement or a relatively young earth?

StormyOne · May 17, 2010

sdadoug said:
Let's go with your definition, RC. For what, as an Adventist, are you standing?
The bible is clear and the Sabbath moot without a 7 day creation.
What is more difficult to believe; The message of REV 14, The Sanctuary model of judgement or a relatively young earth?

ummmm sounds like you have an axe to grind with RC? What is difficult to believe is that people in 2010 cling to magical thinking, and superstitious beliefs when it comes to understanding God.... As for those other things you mentioned, i.e. the sanctuary model, Rev 14 and the young earth, if you believe it and it works for you, fine.... those beliefs and the questionable texts used to support said beliefs are tenuous on the best of days....,

sdadoug · May 17, 2010

StormyOne said:
ummmm sounds like you have an axe to grind with RC? What is difficult to believe is that people in 2010 cling to magical thinking, and superstitious beliefs when it comes to understanding God.... As for those other things you mentioned, i.e. the sanctuary model, Rev 14 and the young earth, if you believe it and it works for you, fine.... those beliefs and the questionable texts used to support said beliefs are tenuous on the best of days....,

Stormy One, As to your name calling and speculating on another's motives...If that works for you, fine... but it is generally not the type of conversation I hold interest for engaging. You may also do well to read Proverbs 26:17 before replying again. It's one of those magical bits of wisdom I like to superstitiously cling to.

StormyOne · May 17, 2010

sdadoug said:
Stormy One, As to your name calling and speculating on another's motives...If that works for you, fine... but it is generally not the type of conversation I hold interest for engaging. You may also do well to read Proverbs 26:17 before replying again. It's one of those magical bits of wisdom I like to superstitiously cling to.

uh huh... sure you do.... as I said, why not deal with the material RC presented as opposed to attempting to skewer him with purity tests?

Byfaithalone1 · May 18, 2010

sdadoug said:
Stormy One, As to your name calling and speculating on another's motives...If that works for you, fine... but it is generally not the type of conversation I hold interest for engaging. You may also do well to read Proverbs 26:17 before replying again. It's one of those magical bits of wisdom I like to superstitiously cling to.

Doug --

Can you help us understand the reason for the combative tone? This seems a bit unnecessary, given the actual comments made by RC, Stormy and others.

It's one thing to say, "I disagree and here's why." I think this approach works really well in this forum.

It's another to try and connect people to specific labels and then use those labels to cast a negative light.

It's yet another thing to accuse a person of misbehavior, especially when no evidence of the misbehavior exists.

I am not a proponent of the subject presented in the original post; however, it seems that a level headed exchange of ideas should be possible.

BFA

sdadoug · May 27, 2010

Byfaithalone1 said:
Doug --

Can you help us understand the reason for the combative tone? This seems a bit unnecessary, given the actual comments made by RC, Stormy and others.

BFA

Ouch! So much condemnation. So little love.

VictorC · May 27, 2010

sdadoug said:
Ouch! So much condemnation. So little love.

Doug, I'm curious to know what motive you had in joining a discussion forum.

sdadoug · May 28, 2010

VictorC said:
Doug, I'm curious to know what motive you had in joining a discussion forum.

Can't we all just get along? ~ Rodney King~

VictorC · May 28, 2010

VictorC said:
Doug, I'm curious to know what motive you had in joining a discussion forum.

sdadoug said:
Can't we all just get along? ~ Rodney King~

The likely first step in that direction is to answer questions that are posed to you.

Byfaithalone1 · May 28, 2010

sdadoug said:
Ouch! So much condemnation. So little love.

If you viewed my post as being condemning, then I did a poor job at communicating. Condemnation was not my intent. Rather, my intent was to seek understanding regarding the apparent disconnect between the nature of your response and the words actually written by posters such as Stormy and RC. I was hoping to better understand the passion behind your words.

I apologize if I was not clear regarding my intent. I don't wish to condemn you.

BFA

sdadoug · May 28, 2010

Byfaithalone1 said:
If you viewed my post as being condemning, then I did a poor job at communicating. Condemnation was not my intent. Rather, my intent was to seek understanding regarding the apparent disconnect between the nature of your response and the words actually written by posters such as Stormy and RC. I was hoping to better understand the passion behind your words.

I apologize if I was not clear regarding my intent. I don't wish to condemn you.

BFA

I will take your word it was not your intention to condemn. Your missing the attacks made on my intent: sounds like you have an axe to grind and my logic: cling[ing] to magical thinking, and superstitious beliefs (from someone I was not even addressing), were likely just an oversight on your part. To the extent my conclusion that you were taking sides was misplaced, I apologize.

I will admit I am passionate about Gods Word, His Law, AND,unapologetically, His church. Christs sacrifice to fulfill the Law and pay the penalty for breaking it has been under attack since the day the devil decided he represented righteousness and truth more fully than his Creator.

I have little patience for those who do Satans bidding for the purpose of running down the SDA church which upholds, (perhaps not all), but certainly the most of His Truth in this world. I was a born-again Christian wandering for many years from one denomination to another, knowing something was missing until I joined the SDA church. So now I have even less tolerance for those who have previously been in the church and now use higher criticism to mask their own apostasy and hypocrisy. Perhaps I could be more objective in other forums where are found more honest seekers posting and responding.

VictorC · May 28, 2010

sdadoug said:
I will admit I am passionate about God’s Word, His Law, AND,unapologetically, His church. Christ’s sacrifice to fulfill the Law and pay the penalty for breaking it has been under attack since the day the devil decided he represented righteousness and truth more fully than his Creator.

In previous posts, you admitted that you didn't know the origin of the law ordained at Sinai. How can you be passionate while disinterested in knowing where that law came from and what purpose it was ordained for?

And, if you recognize that the law has been fulfilled, why then do you return to it in deference to an inspired instruction against doing so in Scripture?

sdadoug said:
I have little patience for those who do Satan’s bidding for the purpose of running down the SDA church which upholds, (perhaps not all), but certainly the most of His Truth in this world.

This sounds like a emotionally charged condemnation based on a lack of knowledge of where the source of the SDA church's inspiration was from.

"God is either teaching His church, reproving their wrongs and strengthening their faith, or He is not. This work is of God, or it is not. God does nothing in partnership with Satan. My work . . . bears the stamp of God or the stamp of the enemy. There is no halfway work in the matter. The Testimonies are of the Spirit of God, or of the devil." [VOL. 4, P. 230.] {5T 671.2}

Ellen White didn't permit any middle ground concerning where her inspiration came from. After comparison of the doctrines rooted in her writing discover that they contradict Scripture, the source she demanded inspiration from becomes too obvious to ignore.

sdadoug said:
I was a born-again Christian wandering for many years from one denomination to another, knowing something was missing until I joined the SDA church. So now I have even less tolerance for those who have previously been in the church and now use “higher criticism” to mask their own apostasy and hypocrisy. Perhaps I could be more objective in other forums where are found more honest seekers posting and responding.

You have shown no tolerance for anyone, even those who had never been in the SDA church such as myself. I took an interest in Adventism after learning of their Sanctuary Doctrine, which was immediately recognized as a denial of a complete and sufficient atonement to reconcile us to God. Personally, I don't have tolerance for those who propagate this myth invented by Adventism as a face-saving farce to uphold 1844. I don't have tolerance for "higher criticism" employed to deny core doctrines of Biblical Christianity as a means to mask their apostasy and hypocrisy.

But, I have lots of tolerance for those who are in such a belief system. The benefit of a discussion forum such as this one is that delving into Scripture to defend your ideas is an exercise that will reveal what is Biblical and what is not. It would seem this exercise is one you aren't interested in.

bugkiller · May 28, 2010

sdadoug said:
I will take your word it was not your intention to condemn. Your missing the attacks made on my intent: sounds like you have an axe to grind and my logic: cling[ing] to magical thinking, and superstitious beliefs (from someone I was not even addressing), were likely just an oversight on your part. To the extent my conclusion that you were taking sides was misplaced, I apologize.

I will admit I am passionate about Gods Word, His Law, AND,unapologetically, His church. Christs sacrifice to fulfill the Law and pay the penalty for breaking it has been under attack since the day the devil decided he represented righteousness and truth more fully than his Creator.

I have little patience for those who do Satans bidding for the purpose of running down the SDA church which upholds, (perhaps not all), but certainly the most of His Truth in this world. I was a born-again Christian wandering for many years from one denomination to another, knowing something was missing until I joined the SDA church. So now I have even less tolerance for those who have previously been in the church and now use higher criticism to mask their own apostasy and hypocrisy. Perhaps I could be more objective in other forums where are found more honest seekers posting and responding.

One of the thing that I find very intriguing about SDA folks is tha unless you agree with them it is an attack against their church.They simply can not discuss theology with anyone outside of their church. My good friend VictorC uses a quote to this affect. Maybe he will post it again for your benefit. SDA have zero tolerance toward others.

bugkiller

Creation debate the Progressive SDA side

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Newbie

Restin

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Senior Veteran

The gospel is Jesus Christ!

Newbie

Jesus - that's my final answer

Newbie

Jesus - that's my final answer

The gospel is Jesus Christ!

Newbie

Jesus - that's my final answer

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency