It's a difficult situation, then. If I believe the SDA denomination is right on the Sabbath and on all their other doctrines, but wrong on origins (or at least, am not prepared to state strongly that they are right on origins - agnostic, remember?) then I'm not welcome in the SDA denomination (or should shut up, keep my head down and stay out of leadership positions, at least), but don't really have any other denominational home. Is the noble action to stop going to church?

Bravus: There are many fine scholars who accept the Bible portrayal of a < 10,000 year earth. Dr. John Baldwin; Dr. Michael Hasel to cite a few.

It sounds like secular education (and that's what it is) has distanced you from the faith of your fathers (or your church). Is your position dynamic or static?

I think you knew that the pivot point of decision would come someday, and that can be a good thing. What would happen if you chose to accept the Bible premise on faith? What changes would result in your life and those closest to you?


olger

But see, this is my problem: I do not accept that it *is* the Bible position. I want to try to be clear on this: while many here believe that there is only one possible way to interpret the Biblical account, many, many sincere Christian theologians, working 'sola scriptura' only on the Biblical texts, have come to a different conclusion.

I *do not* see my position (if it can even be called a position) as a rebellion against scripture or God, but as an honest and on-going quest to understand.

To answer your question, if I were to accept a particular, church-approved interpretation of scripture over my own study of scripture, then I would have moved out of sola scriptura and into the realm where only the Church has the authority to correctly interpret scripture. I'll leave as an exercise for the reader - with the tuition of history - what the consequences of that move would be for me and those around me.

Is your main difference, then, the length of time the earth has existed and not the idea of special creation itself? Or do you also believe that all life evolved from simpler forms?

The Bible is not ambivalent on the issue, and sends a weekly reminder of it's cetainty.

regards,


oG

I don't want to personalize this to Bravus because I believe there are many like him and probably some of them are reading this thread or will read it in the weeks, months, years to come.

I am very sympathetic to the position being discussed here because we are only in control to a certain extent of what we believe. Various people can see the same evidence or hear the same sermon and walk away with different convictions. It is not as if Bravus (or anyone else) can change their conviction about something simply by an act of their will.

I don't think we need to keep theistic evolutionists out of leadership as long as they are willing to serve without using their church position to push the views of theistic evolution. In my church I am a deacon and director of men's ministry. I cannot use either of those positions of trust to advance my ideas about jewelry in good conscience. I expect a theistic evolutionist would be able to serve in the same capacity.

The Adventist church isn't like other denominations in that we are a movement. We hold the same role as John the Baptist did. We are preparing the way for the Lord. Creation is part of our message. The first angel declares, "Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters." This is almost word for word the same as we find inscribed in the Fourth Commandment. "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." Modern-day creation science has its roots in Adventism so the link of a literal six-day creation and the Adventist church is not something that is minor and insignificant.

I have never seen anyone that claimed to believe in Sola Scriptura offer another explanation for creation than a literal creation week 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. The only debatable issues I have seen among those claiming to believe in Sola Scriptura is if there is life on other planets and when the stars were created.

If there is another way to understand the creation account, using the original language and other Bible texts, I am more than interested in seeing that. All the theistic evolutionists I have spoken to or read claim that nature is God's second book and must be used to interpret the Bible. Thus they go outside the 66 books of the Bible in order to interpret the Bible.

Which is the church's official position, then? That the universe as a whole was created 14 billion years ago (or at some indeterminate time much further past) and this earth and life on it was created 6000 years ago? Or that the entire universe was created 6000 years ago? I have seen both positions held right here on CA as being the only possible correct, literal reading of the Bible. You see where my confusion arises?

If we consider the book "Seventh-day Adventists Believe..." as representing official doctrine (that is disputable), than Adventists believe the sun, moon and stars were established as signs on the fourth day - not necessarily created on the fourth day. They also believe the earth was likely one of God's last acts of creation.

So I think it fair to say Adventists believe in an old universe and a young earth. I don't know if that helps.

Look what I found:

• An Affirmation of Creation
• Response to an Affirmation of Creation

Does that help?