Comment on One reason why the debate about origins is relevant by Phil Mills.
Bible believers are the best scientists because they are committed to truth and because they have a source of truth. Today people confuse naturalism, which is a belief that everything is best explained by natural mechanisms, with science. Evolution is not science, it is simply a belief about history, a set of fictitious stories made up by people who were not there to observe. A “just-so” story that changes frequently, but must have certain components, long ages, naturalist forces. History, with its singularities, cannot be discovered by science, it must have eye-witnesses. Science requires reproducibility.
Bible believing scientists have a source of history that is reliable, defensible, and fits the available evidence. Naturalists, exclude evidence and potential solutions as a basic axiom. Fully committed naturalists cannot even honestly consider the evidence and strong arguments of the intelligent design community, many of whom are not young earth creationists.
It is interesting to see the fruit of naturalism â€”>evolutionâ€”>communism, Nazism.
Creationism creates great scientists because they expect the universe to be orderly, predictable, and under law, because it was intelligently designed.
I read a recent study that showed how naturalism has spawned an increasingly metaphysical and non-scientific generation.
The Bible is not the enemy of science, it is its best friend. It is the enemy of foolishness, even popular foolishness, which is why it is regarded as such a dangerous book by those who have a vested interest in keeping the multitudes in darkness and ignorance.
Phil Mills Also Commented
I am not familiar with Dr. Clausen, to be honest, I have never heard of him (I assume it is him, since you later refer to his). Neither do I have the slightest knowledge of what his Dr. means (MD, PhD, specialty, area of expertise, etc).
Your question about “his science” shows a misunderstanding of science. The same sort of misunderstanding of people who talk about “his sabbath”, “his interpretation”, etc. Truth is not owned by any one person. We either hold truth or we don’t. But it is never “our” truth. It is simply true or not true. Furthermore, I am sure there would be truth that Dr. Anybody holds. There is also error that Dr. Anybody holds. One has to analyze the data as well as the source of the data to know if Dr. Anybody’s is utilizing facts or simply opinion; if he is relying on accurate data, or flawed methodology. (Of course, if a person is truly a fully committed agnostic, careful science is a waste of time and effort since you can never know truth anyway. Certainly agnostics don’t need to have science in schools, but for truth seekers, careful investigation, using the scientific method is crucial.)
To categorically say that Dr. Anybody “fits the Bible believing mold” is also a meaningless statement. What mold is that?
Your conjecture regarding my analysis is incorrect on several accounts. Because there were no human observers does not mean there were no observers. That kind of thinking is in line with medieval earth-centric ideas. Furthermore, creation science, with its young earth, creation-fall-flood is a very credible explanation for the data.
Having been taught by a biologist who had spent time on the Galapagos Islands studying the various interesting creatures there, I am familiar with a bit of the data. The issue is not with Darwin’s observations, (that is science), but he did not observe, and admitted he did not observe, evolution. That was simply his now rather thoroughly rejected explanations for the data. His theories were simply a refinement of the ideas he heard from his grandfather growing up.
The inquisition killed people for the same reason the evolutionary-based Nazi’s killed people. Inquisitors really were the same mentality of the evolutionary-believing communist killers. They were neither Bible believers nor truth seekers. The inquisition has the same source as Darwin. When the Bible came it emancipated the people from such problems. The Bible gave us the freedoms we now enjoy, but are soon to lose, because we do not value it.
One reason why the debate about origins is relevant
“This is why traditional Adventists are so firm about rejecting compromise on the foundational truths of Scripture â€¦”
First of all, what is a traditional Adventist? Is that someone that believes in tradition? Why place some modifier to the term Adventist, other than Seventh-day?
It is “Adventists who are firm about rejecting compromise on the foundational truths of Scripture.” This is Intrinsic to being a Seventh-day Adventist. This is being biblical, not traditional. Those who reject plain Scripture are not Adventists, whatever they call themselves or others call them.
Second, I would like to thank Steve Moran for reminding us that we will all appear before the judgment seat of Christ.
There is no reason to feel “shamed” by or apologetic to those who would turn the grace of God into license (Jude 4). God’s love in NO WAY means He is indulgent toward those who reject His word. Moran statement, which at the start seems to exalt God’s love quickly betrays its origins as it belittles belief in God’s word. Moran actually reduces God’s love to a mere sentiment and insults the genuine love of God. Moran’s portrayal of the love of God is exactly the type of “God’s love” that Satan loves to promote. “He enlists the affections by his eloquent portrayals of love and charity.” GC 553.
It was this type of “God’s love” that was popular in the churches of Noah’s day. The antideluvians believed “it was contrary to the character of God to punish transgression; and they denied that His judgments were to be visited upon the earth.” PP 95.3.
But we must never forget that God’s purification of the universe by fire, His destruction of the unbelieving, is a loving act. A God of love condemned Adam, Eve, and their children to a life of difficulty ending in death for disbelieving His word.
Though Moran’s first statement, “Jesus saves me because I have a trusting, committed relationship with him” is theologically shallow, and not clearly biblical, for purposes of discussion here I will adopt it as essentially true.
But note: If I have a trusting relationship with Him, I will trust what He says. If I have a committed relationship with Him I will be committed to what He says. If I reject what He says I have neither a trusting nor committed relationship with Him.
Jesus wrote with His own finger, “in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day.” He wrote this in stone miraculously. For me to reject this is to not having a trusting relationship with God.
Moran than gives his statement of disbelief: “I simply do not believe, on the Day of Judgment, I will find myself standing before Jesus to hear him say, â€œI know you loved me with all your heart and to the best of your ability; I know you took every opportunity to draw closer to me; I know you cared for the unlovable. But, because you did not believe in six recent literal 24-hour days of creation, you cannot enter into eternal life.â€
Unfortunately, just because Moran doesn’t believe that creation is important, does not mean that Christ doesn’t think it is important. God’s word places it as very important. It is declared at the very start of the Bible. It is repeated in the very heart of the 10 commandments, and it is an integral part of the final gospel message to the world in the first angel’s message.
We need not hesitate to say those who elevate the foolishness of “science falsely so called” above the clear word of God do not have faith, they have unbelief. And the Bible is very clear that unbelievers and scoffers will hear a God of love tell them sadly that He does not know them and cannot admit them to heaven. They will hear His sorrowful sentence of condemnation. And they will weep and gnash their teeth in the punishment that will cleanse the universe of sin and sinners.
That is not simply my belief. That is the clear declaration of God. And since I have a trusting and committed relationship to Him, I trust Him to say what He means and mean what He says.
In sum: If I have a trusting, committed relationship with God, I will trust my loving heavenly Father to tell me what is important for me to know to be saved. Based on Moran’s statements, I am not able to determine if He has the loving, committed relationship with God he feels is so important. It would be cavalier to say I wish Him well when He represents himself before the Judge and repeats his unbelief to His Creator. But since I need to make certain my own calling and election is sure, I will not try to examine Moran, but seek to examine myself, to see if I am in the faith.
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.