@Ron: If God did in fact create the world about …

Comment on Former LSU student letter reveals professor’s agenda by Phil Mills.

@Ron: If God did in fact create the world about 10,000 years ago, why did he create it to look like it is millions of years old? Is that not dishonest of God?

1. Of course, it is not dishonest of God. He tells us in His word its approximate age, so how could ANYONE charge Him with deception.

2. Furthermore, He did not create it to look like it is millions of years old. He made it to look like what He created it to look like. If He created it to look like it was millions of years old, believe me, it would in fact look like it was millions of years old. Just because some people confidently declare it “looks” like it is millions of years old doesn’t mean that is what it actually looks like. It actually looks like it is 6,000 years old with catastrophic changes from sin. What it will look like on its 1 millionth birthday will be profoundly different than what you might think.

3. Why did Jesus come as a baby and look one day old on His first day after birth when, in fact, He had lived “billions of years” having existed from all eternity. Was He being dishonest. No. Lest anyone be confused, He gives His age as the eternal God. If I look young, but state my age, am I being dishonest?

By the way, this letter from the Shives struck me with far more force than anything else that has been published on Educate Truth. I could only say after reading it, “Be not deceived. God is not mocked. Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.”

Phil Mills Also Commented

Former LSU student letter reveals professor’s agenda

I wonder whether the dying thief on the cross was told by Jesus that he needed to believe in a 6-day creation week in the past 4,000 years and in a worldwide flood that covered every speck of land before he could be saved?  

No need to wonder.

To be saved it is necessary to receive the love of the truth (2 Thes 2:10). The dying thief received the love of the truth or he would not have been saved. To truly love and receive Jesus, not simply in word but in deed and in truth (1 John 3:18) is to receive and to love the truth since Christ is the truth (John 14:6). The dying thief revealed that he had received the saving love of the truth, because he accepted the words of Christ to him without cavil or doubt.

If we have not yet received the love of the truth, it really doesn’t matter what theories we espouse. We can be as orthodox as the Pharisees or as liberal as the progressive Sadducees, we can be as political as the Herodians or as enthusiastic as the zealots, but none of it will make any difference. We must pray to receive God’s gift of love for the truth.

Those who knowingly and willingly love and accept the opinions of men more than the plain truths of God’s word have not yet received a love for the truth. We pity them, we pray for them like Jesus did the Roman soldiers who crucified Him, “Father, forgive them ….” We certainly don’t defend them or worse copy them!

To reject Jesus the Creator is to turn from Jesus the Savior. They are one and the same. To reject the One is to reject the Other. To refuse to allow the word of God to guide our beliefs is to refuse to let the same word that created the world recreate us. It was disbelief in God’s word that caused the fall of our first parents. Disbelief will complete the ruin in their children.

Former LSU student letter reveals professor’s agenda
@Ken: How do you know the world ‘looks’ like it is 6000 years, or millions, or billions years old, if you are younger than that?

How can we know anything about history that happened either before we were born or occurred where we could not observe it? We can’t, unless there was a reliable observer who than informs us what happened. In the case of creation, that is God. He was there. He is a reliable observer. Furthermore, even if I was over 6,000 years old and was present during the creation, my observations would be of less value and reliability than His.

The mere speculations of evolutionists as to the apparent age of the earth may be convincing to the simple, the gullible, the naive but an evolutionist saying it is so doesn’t make it so. No evolutionist was there. God was.

Who is the liar? God, who was there? Or some fool who wasn’t there, isn’t very old, and doesn’t know much of anything but believes that his (or her) research shows the earth must be very old? I wish all my questions in life were this easy.

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.

Board of Trustees Addresses Curriculum Proposal
@David Read:

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.

Back to Square One…

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.

Back to Square One…

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.