Comment on Why those who hate the Bible love blind-faith Christians by Phil Mills.
For every truth, there is a counterfeit. There is pseudofaith (1 Tim 1:5, Ja 2:19), pseudoscience (1 Tim 6:20), pseudolove (1 Joh 3:18), pseudohope (Job 8:18), etc. Unfortunately, these counterfeits delude their possessors into pseudosecurity and pseudosalvation (Rev 3:17).
Fortunately, all counterfeits expose themselves by attacking the genuine. It is a strange thing to observe, but false love is unloving and hateful toward those it deems unloving or hateful. It is interesting to watch those who do not seem to read others’ posts very carefully, complaining that their own posts are not read carefully. Those who complain of being misunderstood and maligned seem to be misunderstanding and maligning others. How true the Bible is, that the sin we charge against others is the sin we are most apt to be committing.
As a frequent lurker, but seldom contributor it seems that some frequent posters are in the manufacturing business. Manufacturing a problem where none exists. It is obvious that anyone on this site who is determined to misunderstand the plainest statements, find a disagreement where no disagreement exists, or pick a fight where no fight exists, can manufacture misunderstanding, disagreements, and fights. Yes, even self-styled young earth creationists and professors can do this.
I will try once again to explain true faith, more for the unbiased lurker, than the pugilists that frequently post. I will not be saying something new or different, but repeat what has been said over and over by a variety of posters more eloquent than I:
The Word of God establishes all things. Our science does not “prove” the Bible, the Bible proves our science. But since the God of the Bible is the Creator of the universe and the author of the book of nature, there can never be a true contradiction between science and the Bible. We study both humbly and carefully knowing that each sheds light on the other. Science doesn’t trump the Bible, it is an aid in Bible study. It illustrates, teaches, and reinforces spiritual truths (Rom 1:20; Ps 97:6).
We go to nature knowing that properly understood, it will declare the glory of God (Ps 19:1, 2). We know that the evidence of true science cannot but second the truths of God’s word. In the hierarchy of authority the Bible has the first and final word. Science can only imply what the Bible clearly states. While science can teach of the power, handiwork, and love of God, sin has dimmed its message. The Bible is necessary to properly interpret nature. And the Bible alone can declare God’s personality. The Holy Spirit must work in our study of the Bible since we can never unaided find God (Job 11:7).
Thus, because Bible-believing scientists start from the proper premises, because they have a passion for truth, because they have available assistance from the Author of the book of nature, and because they have been promised power to keep them humble, Bible believers make the best scientists. Furthermore, they have a joy, an assurance, a purpose that the atheist and agnostic scientist can neither posses nor understand.
To declare that this is somehow demeaning of truth faith, somehow ignoring the Holy Spirit’s necessary work, somehow believing science over the Bible, somehow blasphemy is simply mocking the clearly stated and frequently repeated beliefs of this site. Those who mock shouldn’t go around whimpering that they are suffering and being vilified here. Nor should they think they are somehow champions of genuine faith or love. There is a great difference between being buffeted for our faults and being assaulted for our virtues (1 Pet 2:12). Perhaps, the advice of Proverbs to listen more and talk less (Pro 10:19) would help us all.
Phil Mills Also Commented
Okay, Phil. We both know your remark is directed toward me.
Actually not specifically. It was an observation of human nature. It was directed at me as much as anyone else. There have been a number of posts by a number of individuals over the months that illustrated it well. I could give you many instances in my own life that confirm this tendency, I am sorry to say.
I would be happy to carry on a conversation in the quiet “privacy” of e-mail, but not in a public forum. If you would like you can contact me at email@example.com.
Recent Comments by Phil Mills
Back to Square One…
David, here is a familiar statement I like with instruction for what I can do AT THIS TIME:
“At this time we must gather warmth from the coldness of others, courage from their cowardice, and loyalty from their treason” (5T 136).
If apostates are fearless about trumpeting their apostasy, why should I not be even more emboldened with the truth. Error has no future. Gaddafi was a strong man yesterday, where is he today?
What we sow we reap (Gal 6:7) is a law throughout the universe. Sow faith, reap faith. Sow hope, reap hope. Sow love, reap love.
There are two sources of seeds to sow. One source is the word of God. The other is the enemy. One sows good seed, the other tares. By the command of God, the tares must grow till harvest (Mt 13:30). The fruit alone can expose the seed for what it is. The seeds of darkness and doubt that have been sown for 6,000 years must fully ripen.
We are not surprised by anything today, because the harvest is near and the fruit is ripening. But though there will be a pitiful harvest of evil, I rejoice that there is a much more abundant harvest of righteousness. We can see it by faith. The word of God is not going to return void. The weeds of sin are not sufficient to crowd out the harvest of righteousness. The death of Christ, his mediation in heaven are not in vain. Sin, and those who insist on clinging to it, will be destroyed, while those who cling to Jesus have a sure refuge.
It is interesting how easily three can be dropped from the board when leadership decides to act.
How wise God is. As He has done in the past, so He works in the present. He removes our excuses and lets us reveal reveal our true character by the varying circumstances of life.
We could multiply examples. The Cain that was too kind to “cruelly” kill a lamb for a sacrifice in obedience to God’s command, could easily kill Abel in defiance of God’s command. King Saul, who was too merciful to execute Agag in obedience to God’s command, could kill the high priest in disobedience to God’s command.
Thus it has been through history. Ellen White makes insightful observations about Uriah Smith’s being too weak to provide energetic leadership for right, yet being plenty strong to provide energetic leadership for wrong in the original Battle Creek College crisis of the early 1880’s.
We have certainly seen this same pattern at La Sierra. The same leaders that could not seem to act decisively and firmly when God’s character and truth were under attack, suddenly found the decision and firmness to fire the four men who attacked their own character.
Now other LSU leaders who can’t act decisively in the face of rebellion against the church can suddenly act decisively against those who are seeking harmony with the church. All this reveals that these leaders could have acted decisively and firmly all along, IF THEY CHOSE.
Of course, it should help us reflect on our own lives. What are we revealing by our own inconsistencies?
Former board member never talked with biology faculty
I wonder if “due process” was afforded those who were dropped, since that is very important for accreditation. I wonder if this is being explored.
ken: If I understand Phil correctly, the SDA church is a form or a representative democracy where each local church gets to vote upon and elect its delegates to the GC
No. That is not true. Each local congregation votes it’s representatives to a conference constituency meeting. The constituency votes the conference officers. Conferences then may vote representatives for unions and union constituencies. Unions and division organizations then have representatives at the general conference. At the general conference level it is quite removed from the local church representative. But I am still over simplifying.
Ken, you couldn’t be farther from understanding me.
This is NOT doctrinal change, it is merely attempting to better express the doctrine that has always been taught in the Bible and generally held by the membership of the Seventh-day Adventist church. There isn’t a marginal doctrine in the lot of the 28 fundamental beliefs.
The church doesn’t make doctrines only the Bible can make doctrine. Bible truth and Bible doctrines don’t care a straw about committees or majorities, neither does it change regardless of the views and votes of others.
To understand the phrase commonly used by Adventist “truth is progressive” is to understand that a first grader learns simple truth, then building on the truths he moves to second grade and continues to add to the basic truths and how to apply them to life.
1. Truth is objective, not merely subjective. Truth has evidence. The best possible evidence of truth is that God says it. But other evidence, such as the evidence of science, while weaker, is available. Science cannot “prove” God’s word, but when properly understood, will always provide documentation to the truthfulness of God’s word.
2. Progression is not a rejection of old truth, but a building on, an amplification of previously discovered truth.
Error never will evolve into truth, it simply mutants into greater and greater error.
Truth never changes. It remains far more stable than the Rock of Gibralter. God creates in my heart a love for the truth. As I investigate more and more carefully the word of God, my understanding of life becomes more and more accurate. I can change, but truth does not.
In the area of doctrine: Only the Bible can make true doctrine. The church can only express a summary of key Bible doctrines in a statement of belief.
There is no contemplation of changing doctrine in the modification of the wording of the churches belief. It is simply clarifying its original intent.
And if the church abandoned its fundamental beliefs, as the Jews did, and many Christians did, the truth has not changed. Because truth and doctrine is not democratically determined, all that has happened is that a group of people have united to leave the truth. We call it apostasy. Sadly it has happened to groups in the past (see John 6 and the multitudes leaving Jesus) and sadly it happens sometimes to individuals even within the Seventh-day Adventist church today.